Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS

China

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the Government policy relating to the admission of the People's Republic of China to a seat on the Council of the United Nations Organisation.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): Her Majesty's Government's policy on this matter remains as frequently stated in this House and elsewhere.

Mr. Hughes: Does not the Secretary of State think that this very important matter is worthy of a more detailed Answer, and does he not agree that, having regard to the disquieting policy of China on the Indian border, never was it more important that China should be brought within the comity of civilised nations than at present? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take steps to bring that about?

Mr. Lloyd: I appreciate the importance of the matter which the hon. and learned Gentleman has raised, but Her Majesty's Government's position has been stated at length on this matter before, and I have nothing to add.

South-West Africa (Resolutions)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what resolutions on the subject of South-West Africa were adopted by the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations; how the British delegate voted on each; which delegates voted for or against each resolution; and which abstained.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Robert Allan): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 11th November to the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu).

Mr. Brockway: I have read that reply, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of us regard as disgraceful the fact that in the United Nations the British Government should have sided with the Union of South Africa on this issue instead of protesting against the aggression which it has committed in South-West Africa?

Mr. Allan: As I pointed out to the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu), this problem cannot be solved without the co-operation of the Union Government. We must have that co-operation.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there have been any recent discussions with other Commonwealth countries which hold different views? Is he aware that the Commonwealth is badly divided on this subject?

Mr. Allan: I cannot say whether discussions have been taking place other than those in the United Nations. I should need notice of that question.

Hungary

Mr. Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will instruct the British delegation at the United Nations to bring before the Assembly for discussion the report of Sir Leslie Munro concerning conditions in Hungary; and whether he will support a proposal that the mission entrusted to Sir Leslie Munro should be prolonged for a further period.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Sir Leslie Munro has not yet submitted his report, but I understand he will do so shortly. Until it is available to Her Majesty's Government no decision can be taken on the instructions to be given to the United Kingdom delegation I have, however, taken note of the hon. Member's suggestion.
As regards the second part of the Question, the period of Sir Leslie Munro's mission is not limited by the United Nations' resolution under which


he was appointed. The question raised by the hon. Member does not therefore arise.

Mr. Fletcher: Will the Foreign Secretary bear in mind that there is still considerable disquiet in this country about conditions in Hungary? Would he agree that it is derogatory to the authority of the United Nations unless its appointed representative has full opportunities to carry out his mission, which is to investigate conditions in Hungary?

Mr. Lloyd: I am conscious of that point of view and will certainly take it into account.

Sir T. Moore: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been drawn to the fact that 30 identifiable young Hungarians, aged 18 years, have recently been shot in Hungary by order of the Hungarian Government, and that about 100 other youths are due to be shot when they reach the age of 18 years, because of the fact that they are alleged to have taken part in the Hungarian uprising in 1956, when they were 15 years of age or under; and if he will bring this matter to the notice of the United Nations Special Commissioner on Hungary without delay so that some action may be taken to prevent any further executions.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: There have been numerous disturbing reports in recent months of executions in Hungary. I have no confirmation of the alleged executions to which my hon. Friend refers.
It is part of Sir Leslie Munro's mission to observe and report on developments in Hungary and I have no doubt that the reports in question will have come to his attention. I am, however, asking the Permanent United Kingdom Representative to the United Nations to make certain that this is so.

Sir T. Moore: As I can give my right hon. and learned Friend the names of these young Hungarians who were murdered, would he agree that it would be monstrous if this callous, inhuman, uncivilised conduct were allowed to continue without some widespread and international protest or effort being made to stop further butchery?

Mr. Lloyd: I will certainly be glad to pass on any information that my hon. Friend gives me. A Question was asked earlier by an hon. Member opposite about the United Nations debating these matters. I shall have more information to give to the House on that matter shortly.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this charge has been bluntly and repeatedly repudiated by the Hungarian Government, and that the Hungarian Government have invited all those who make these silly charges to provide proof and to give chapter and verse for the alleged hanging of these young people?

Mr. Lloyd: I think the answer to the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question would be for the Hungarian Government to co-operate with Sir Leslie Munro. That would be the best way to deal with these matters. Up to now the Hungarian Government have refused to do that.

Mr. S. O. Davies: They have invited this Government to do it, and other Governments, too.

Mr. Fletcher: If the Hungarian Government were to grant Sir Leslie Munro a visa to enter Hungary, will the Foreign Secretary do his best to ensure that his visit comes about?

Mr. Lloyd: I agree that that is the way to rebut these charges, if they can be rebutted.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say why some hon. Members protest about visits of leading statesmen of other countries to Spain, but when a human matter like this is raised they do not protest?

Nuclear Tests, Sahara (Resolution)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the British representative at the United Nations voted against a motion requesting France to refrain from carrying out nuclear test explosions.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the condemnation by the United Nations Political Committee of the prospective


test of nuclear weapons in the Sahara desert, what action our representative took in the matter.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how the United Kingdom delegate voted on the resolution before the United Nations urging France to refrain from nuclear tests; which nations voted for the resolution; which against; and which abstained.

Mr. W. Griffiths: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for what reason the United Kingdom representative on the Political Commission of the United Nations General Assembly voted against the resolution demanding the abandonment of the French nuclear tests programme in the Sahara; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The United Kingdom voted against the draft resolution put forward by certain Afro-Asian countries because it was based on the assumption—which we consider to be incorrect—that the proposed French tests would endanger health in other countries, and because we considered that our draft resolution was more realistic and constructive. There were 46 votes in favour of the Afro-Asian resolution, 26 against, and 10 abstentions. I will, with permission, circulate the details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Allaun: Was not this throwing away the chance of stopping the spread of nuclear weapons to more and more nations? If the Government wish France to join an agreement banning tests, why on earth did they encourage France to proceed with them?

Mr. Lloyd: The Afro-Asian resolution contained a preamble which we believed to be incorrect. It was based on the false assumption that there was danger to health from the tests. To explain our positive attitude, I remind the hon. Member of the operative part of our resolution:
expresses the hope that the French Government will associate themselves with the arrangements which may be worked out in order to achieve the suspension of nuclear weapons tests under effective international control;
and secondly:
requests France to take full account of the views expressed in this debate.

I maintain that that was perfectly straightforward and a constructive position to take up.

Mr. W. Griffiths: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that all scientists in all countries agree that letting off these devices is not for the benefit of most people—it certainly does not do us any good—and that if Britain had not cast its vote with the minority, that would have looked more consistent with the Government's avowed intention of working at Geneva for the banning of these tests? Did not our action look rather like hypocrisy?

Mr. Lloyd: I cannot understand why hon. Gentlemen should be so ready to describe our action in that way. We put forward a resolution which received a wide measure of support and which contained a constructive approach to this matter—I believe, the only constructive approach. Why hon. Members should be so anxious to denigrate the position of the Government I do not understand.

Mr. Sorensen: May we take it that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Answer endorses the French action and is an indication that he welcomes this extra test? If not, cannot he give some indication of his regret that this experiment should take place?

Mr. Lloyd: We have said that we do not think that this test will do any physical damage to anybody. That is our position. I remind hon. Gentlemen that the Moroccan delegate, when introducing this resolution, said that he did not mind the French having nuclear tests, but objected to the tests being in Africa. Our position is that we do not think that the test will do any damage. Our constructive policy towards the suspension of tests is contained in our resolution.

Mr. Swingler: We are not asking the Foreign Secretary whether he thinks that the French tests will do damage or not. The question is whether Her Majesty's Government are in favour of any more nuclear tests, including the French test. Why was not the answer to that question made clear at the United Nations? Will the Foreign Secretary answer this question: are the Government in favour of or


against any more nuclear tests, including the French test?

Mr. Lloyd: That kind of supplementary question makes me wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is trying to make mischief, [interruption.] We want to secure the suspension of all nuclear tests. We are trying to get agreement to that effect. When we get agreement to that effect among the three nuclear Powers, we hope that other Powers will join. That is a perfectly straightforward statement, as hon. Members will agree, I think.

Mr. Healey: Can the Foreign Secretary explain why he thought it proper to authorise the introduction of this resolution to the United Nations Political Committee last Tuesday, and yet when be was in France on Wednesday and Thursday, according to the answers to the questions I asked him on Monday, he did not think it proper even to discuss with any representative of the French Government the adherence of the French Government to a future test ban treaty?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman must get his facts right. If he looks at my Answer, he will see that I said that I did discuss this matter with M. Couve de Murville.

Following are the details:
The voting on the resolution tabled by certain Afro-Asian delegations was as follows:
In favour: United Arab Republic, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, Burma, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cambodia, Canada, Ceylon, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, Federation of Malaya, Finland, Ghana, Guinea, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Japan, Jordan, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Morocco, Nepal, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Roumania, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Sweden, Tunisia, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Against: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay, Argentina, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Portugal, Spain, Union of South Africa.
Abstaining: Australia, China, Costa Rica, Denmark, Greece, Laos. Mexico, Paraguay, Thailand, Turkey.

F.A.O. (Mediterranean Development Project)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what report he has had from the United Kingdom representative on the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation in respect of a plan to abolish malnutrition in the Mediterranean region; and if that plan will receive the full support of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. R. Allan: The Mediterannean Development Project of the Food and Agriculture Organisation was discussed by Commission I of the Tenth F.A.O. Conference on 11th November. The project received general support, including that of Her Majesty's Government. The draft report to the Plenary Meeting is still under discussion.

Mr. Sorensen: While expressing appreciation of the assurance that Her Majesty's Government are supporting this project, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that in fact the assertion is that under this project malnutrition can be abolished within fifteen years? May we take it that Her Majesty's Government will financially support the project when it is in operation?

Mr. Allan: We will give general support, but I cannot go into details until the draft report has been submitted to the Plenary Council.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: May I press the Joint Under-Secretary on the fact that this report is really of vast importance to the Mediterranean countries? It has been prepared over a long period of time with the greatest possible care. Cannot he say that the Government will support any international plan for adequate loans and carry out the plan when it is agreed to?

Mr. Allan: I have said that we shall give general support, but the details have not yet been worked out. It is impossible for me to commit the Government until we have seen the detailed proposals.

Atomic Weapons (Resolution)

Mr. Healey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government


to support the draft resolution concerning atomic weapons, introduced to the Political Committee of the United Nations Assembly by the delegate of the Eireann Government.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Her Majesty's Government's Representative on this United Nations Committee voted for this resolution on 16th November.

Mr. Healey: While welcoming these things, may I ask the Foreign Secretary whether the affirmative vote of Her Majesty's Government implies that the Government will in no circumstances support handing over control of nuclear warheads to countries which have not made nuclear weapons?

Mr. Lloyd: I think an affirmative vote for this resolution implies support for the resolution.

Security Council (Turkey)

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for what reason the Government supports the candidature of Turkey to the Security Council.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The reasons have already been given to the House by my hon. Friend the Minister of State in his speech on 29th October in the debate on the Gracious Speech.

Mr. Zilliacus: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that Turkey has now put forward her candidature as an Asian State, although Middle Eastern countries and most, if not all, Asian members of the Commonwealth are voting for Poland? Is he not also aware that Turkey has put forward her claim to represent South Eastern Europe outside the Soviet bloc, although Greece and Yugoslavia are voting for Poland? Finally, does he not know that Turkey, a few years ago, put forward her claim to be recognised as a West European State on the strength of her membership of N.A.T.O.? Is it not now time that the Government supported Poland and stopped this foolishness of supporting Turkey?

Mr. Lloyd: No. My hon. Friend stated our reasons for supporting Turkey. I agree that it is a difficult matter, but the real solution, as I think the hon.

Member knows, is that as the membership of the Security Council is too small; it should be increased.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the reasons given by his hon. Friend did not satisfy many Members? I have nothing against Turkey's membership of the Security Council in the ordinary way, but is it not a fact that she has twice been a member of the Security Council, and that it would have made for better relations between East and West, and a reduction of tension, if Her Majesty's Government had supported the claim of Poland to this seat?

Mr. Lloyd: In his speech my hon. Friend said that Turkey is a strong and loyal ally of ours, with a very balanced and stabilising contribution to make. We had just supported Poland's candidature for the Economic and Social Council, and we thought it right to support Turkey's candidature for the Security Council.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANTARCTIC (TREATY)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will subscribe to the proposed twelve-nation treaty guaranteeing the Antarctic against political and military intervention, and providing for the exchange of scientific information.

Sir A. Hurd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent Antarctic treaty to ensure the peace of the area; and what steps he has taken to ensure that British sovereignty in the Falkland Islands and the Falkland Island Dependencies is in no way compromised.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Negotiations for an Antarctic treaty are still going on and a statement at this stage would be premature.

Mr. Brockway: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he is aware that many of us hope that an Antarctic neutralisation area will be established and that it will be a precedent for danger areas in the world as well as distant areas?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that the position of Her Majesty's Government is well


known. We wish to have a treaty based on freedom and co-operation in scientific activity and the use of Antarctica for peaceful purposes only.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAOS

Prince Souphanouvong (Trial)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply was made to the official request, made to him, as co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference on Indo-China, by the Government of the Chinese People's Republic, that, in view of their allegation that Article 15 of the Cease-Fire Agreement is being broken, Her Majesty's Government should urge the Laos Government to abandon the trial of Prince Souphanouvong and others in order not to intensify antagonisms among its people.

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has made to the official communications sent to him, as co-Chairman of the Geneva Agreement, by the Polish and Chinese Governments regarding the arrest and impending trial of Prince Souphanouvong and seven other leaders of the former Pathet Lao forces.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the impending trial of Prince Souphanouvong and other leaders of the Neo Lao Haksat party of Laos constitutes, prima facie, a breach of the Geneva Agreement; what official representations Her Majesty's Government, as a sponsor and co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference of 1954, has received from the other Governments concerned about the need to safeguard the rights guaranteed by that Agreement to these men, seven of whom are members of the Laotian National Assembly; and what replies he has sent.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I presume the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) is referring to Governments which were members of the Geneva Conference. We received a Note from the Chinese Government on this subject on 31st October and have replied to it. Our reply fully sets out our position and, as it is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The matter

was also raised with us by the Soviet Government and we have expressed views similar to those contained in our reply to the Chinese Note. No communication from the Polish Government has been received here.

Mr. Brockway: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether, in the first place, he would consult his co-Chairman on this matter in view of the allegation that there has been a breach of the Geneva Agreement, and, secondly, whether he would use his influence to secure the abandonment of this trial in order to help the neutralisation of Laos, of which he expressed himself in favour last week?

Mr. Lloyd: This matter is, of course, being discussed between the two co-Chairmen. I indicated in my Answer that a reply had been received. The position, so far as the Laotian Government are concerned, is that they consider it an internal matter. The hon. Gentleman will realise that when a Government take up that position it is very difficult to state publicly that one is going to seek to influence them one way or the other.

Mr. Warbey: Was not the Laotian Government a party to the Geneva Agreement which dealt with a number of internal matters, including the question of the resolving of the differences between the Government and the Pathet Lao forces? As this is the source of the present difficulties, would not the sensible thing be to agree with the Indian Government in supporting the recall of the International Control Commission?

Mr. Lloyd: As far as the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is concerned, I think that there is no doubt that Article 9 of the Political Agreement signed at Vientiane on 2nd November, 1957, is relevant. So far as the recalling of the International Control Commission is concerned, we have said again and again that that really cannot happen unless the Laotian Government are willing to have it back. On the question of these trials, I think that if hon. Members will consider the case which we have put forward in our recent Note they will realise that there is merit in it. But I still adhere very definitely to what I said before, that our intention is to have a neutral Laos.

Mr. Driberg: Can we take it from the right hon. Gentleman's reply to the first supplementary question, which seems reasonable, that the reply which is to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT indicates the continuing interest of Her Majesty's Government, as one of the co-signatories, in this matter?

Mr. Lloyd: We certainly have a continuing interest in the carrying out of the Geneva Agreement.

Following is the text of the United Kingdom reply of 14th November to the Chinese Note of 31st October:

I have the honour to refer to Your Excellency's Note of 31st October about the situation in Laos and to inform you that Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are unable to agree that the United Kingdom and Soviet Governments should take action, as suggested, in regard to the proposed trial of the leaders of the Neo Lao Hak Sat. This is a matter for the Laotian authorities in which it would not be proper for other Governments to intervene.

2. The Chinese People's Government suggests that the holding of such a trial would be a violation of the Geneva and Vientiane Agreements by the Government of Laos. Nothing in those Agreements however precludes the Laotian authorities from prosecuting members of the Neo Lao Hak Sat in the Laotian courts for offences against Laotian law subsequent to the signature of the Cease-Fire Agreement. Nor does the Cease-Fire Agreement or the Vientiane Agreement absolve the members of the Neo Lao Hak Sat from the obligation to act in accordance with the laws of Laos. On the contrary, Article 9 of the political Agreement signed at Vientiane on 2nd November, 1957, gives to the Neo Lao Hak Sat the same responsibilities, as well as the same rights and liberties as to other political parties in Laos and makes those rights and liberties dependent on the statutes of the N.L.H.S. being in accordance with Laotian law. It is for the Laotian courts to determine whether the Neo Lao Hak Sat leaders have broken the law. Any action by the co-Chairmen or the International Commission to intervene between the Laotian courts and the members of the Neo Lao Hak Sat would constitute interference in the internal affairs of Laos and would be contrary to paragraph 12 of the Final Declaration of the Geneva Conference.

3. In their Note, the Chinese People's Government also state that the Government of Laos have continually violated and have renounced the Geneva Settlement. Her Majesty's Government regret that they are unable to accept this statement. I wish especially to draw to your attention the statement made to the press by the Laotian Prime Minister in Paris on 31st October. After explaining that the Laotian Government had not in any way violated the Geneva Settlement, he stated categorically: "We shall do nothing contrary to the provisions of the Geneva Settlement".

4. Her Majesty's Government are anxious to do everything possible to ensure that the Geneva Settlement in regard to Laos is maintained. They are unable, however, as they have frequently stated, to agree to try to impose the International Commission on the Laotian Government who are unwilling to accept its return. Nevertheless they consider that peaceful conditions in Laos will be reestablished if all concerned act wholly in accordance with their obligations under the Geneva Settlement. Her Majesty's Government hope that the Chinese People's Government will join Her Majesty's Government in using their influence to this end, in particular by urging on the North Vietnamese authorities the importance of acting in accordance with paragraph 12 of the Final Declaration of the Geneva Conference.

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reports he has received, as co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference, from the Government of Laos about the proposed trial of Prince Souphanouvong and seven other leaders of the Neo Lao Hak Sat Party.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have received no report from the Government of Laos about this matter. The Laotian Govern-Government does not report to the co-Chairmen and would in any case regard this question as an internal matter.

Mr. Davies: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that the situation with regard to the 1954 Geneva Conference has now become absurd? Is he as a co-Chairman still of the opinion that his function is merely to receive reports about the situation? If, through some unfortunate circumstance, Prince Souphanouvong and the other seven representatives should be tried, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman as co-Chairman undertake to see that observers are sent to the trial and that the evidence is made available to him and the House?

Mr. Lloyd: It is quite true that I am one of the co-Chairmen of the Geneva Conference, together with Mr. Gromyko. But that is a position in which one does not have the power to enforce any views one has, and one has therefore to exercise one's influence in the best way one can to secure declared objectives. I have declared my objectives, but it is not wise to say publicly the way in which one tries to implement or achieve them.

Soviet Note (Reply)

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply has been sent by Her Majesty's Government to the Soviet Note of 16th September requesting the reconvening of the Geneva Conference of 1954 to consider the situation at Laos.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: An interim reply which answered some of the points made by the Soviet Government in their published proposals was sent on 21st September and published on that day. A further reply was made on 9th November. I will circulate both these documents in the OFFICIAL REPORT. AS my hon. Friend told the House on 11th November, we are unable to agree with the Soviet suggestion.

Mr. Noel-Baker: The Foreign Secretary said this afternoon that it is our purpose to get a neutral Laos. Can we hope to get that without the co-operation of the Government of Peking? Since that Government have said that they are ready to sit at the table in a renewed conference and to negotiate questions arising about Laos, would not it be wise to start negotiating again with them?

Mr. Lloyd: This is a matter of judgment. The Government of Peking are not the only Government concerned. I have said that we are unable to agree with the Soviet suggestion, but it is a matter of judgment.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it not certain that we cannot get a neutral and stable Laos without the co-operation of the Government of Peking? Is not that the principal point that we ought to consider?

Mr. Lloyd: I agree that it is important to get a measure of co-operation. At the moment, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Security Council is dealing with this matter and the Secretary-General has just been there. All I can say is that I am not able to accept the Soviet suggestion.

Following are the documents:

NOTE DELIVERED BY HER MAJESTY'S AMBASSADOR IN MOSCOW TO THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT ON 21ST SEPTEMBER, 1959

The United Kingdom Government have carefully considered the Soviet Government's statement of 15th September about the situation in Laos. In that statement the Soviet Government made certain proposals for dealing with the situation which has developed in Laos.

As regards those proposals the United Kingdom Government do not propose to comment in substance at the present time. The Security Council of the United Nations is seized of the question and has established a Sub-Committee to make enquiries and to report to it. Once that report has been received, it will be easier to decide how the matter should be dealt with and the Security Council will no doubt at that stage consider any proposals which may be put forward.

Meanwhile, however, the United Kingdom Government cannot let pass without comment some of the statements made by the Soviet Government which are both legally and factually incorrect

(a) Article 29 of the United Nations Charter, which is in the section headed "Procedure", lays down that the Security Council may establish such subsidiary organs as it deems necessary for the performance of its functions. The decision to set up a Sub-Committee of the Security Council was taken under this Article. The Soviet Government are therefore incorrect in saying that the unanimity rule ought to apply in this case. As regards the San Francisco Declaration, part 1, paragraph 2, of the Declaration states that the Council will, by the vote of any seven of its members, "establish such bodies and agencies as it deems necessary for the performance of its functions". There can consequently be no doubt that the Sub-Committee, with terms of reference as defined in the Resolution of the Security Council of which the Soviet Union complain, was correctly established by a procedural decision. A study of the record of what was said in the Security Council by the United Kingdom representative during the consideration of the Corfu Channel Case in 1947 and the Czechoslovak Question in 1948 will show that the United Kingdom representative has in the past cogently and consistently argued on the same lines as those followed by Sir Pierson Dixon in the Security Council on 7th September. Her Majesty's Government greatly regret that the Soviet representative found it necessary to cast the only dissenting vote.
(b) The United Kingdom Government's decision to join in proposing the establishment of a Sub-Committee to make enquiries into the facts in regard to Laos was entirely consistent with the views expressed to the Soviet Government in discussion between the two Governments, as representatives of the Co-Chairmen of the Geneva Conference of 1954, during the period immediately before the Laotian Government's decision to appeal to the United Nations. As the Soviet Government will recall, the United Kingdom Government had proposed that the two Governments should request the Secretary General of the United Nations to send a fact-finder to Laos. They had hoped that this would be in accordance with the wishes of the Soviet Government who had been maintaining, as one of the principal reasons why the International Commission should return to Laos, that it was necessary for the Co-Chairmen to receive an impartial statement of the facts. Unfortunately, however, the Soviet Government did not accept this proposal. It is also to be regretted that they should have


opposed the Security Council's desire to establish the facts by the appointment of a Sub-Committee. The United Kingdom Government do not understand how the Soviet Government can maintain that the Laotian Government had no right to appeal to the United Nations or that a discussion of the question in the Security Council was a violation of the United Nations Charter. Every member of the United Nations has the right to refer its case to the Security Council, if it considers that its independence and territorial integrity are threatened by interference from outside.
(c) The United Kingdom Government take exception to the Soviet Government's suggestion that their action in putting forward the resolution of the Security Council is an attempt to poison the international atmosphere at the present time. In the view of Her Majesty's Government the Laotian Government in their communications to the United Nations made out a prima facie case that North Vietnam is interfering in their affairs in contravention of Paragraph 12 of the Final Declaration of the Geneva Conference. In the United Kingdom Government's view they would have been failing in their duty as members of the Security Council if they had not supported the inclusion of an item on the agenda. Having taken this position the Security Council could hardly have done less, as a first step, than to assure itself that it was in possession of the necessary facts.
(d) The United Kingdom Government have always shared the Soviet Government's desire to see that the Geneva Settlement is fully observed. In their notes of 7th April and 9th June the United Kingdom Government have set out at length the facts of what occurred in Laos during that period and have shown in detail how the Soviet accusations against the Laotian Government of violations of the Geneva agreements were unjustified. Since then the situation has grown worse. At the end of June and at the beginning of July the propaganda of the North Vietnamese authorities began to speak of the existence of civil war in Laos. No fighting, however, was taking place. Between 16th July and the end of the month however it became clear that the Pathet Lao, with the support and assistance of the North Vietnamese authorities, had decided to try to create the "Civil War" of which they had been talking. It is these actions on the part of the Pathet Lao and the North Vietnamese authorities which have created the present situation in Laos and not the Laotian Government, who, as they have repeatedly stated, only desire to be left alone in peace.

NOTE GIVEN TO THE SOVIET AMBASSADOR IN LONDON ON 9TH NOVEMBER, 1959

Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs presents his compliments to His Excellency the Soviet Ambassador, and has the honour to refer to the Note delivered to the Soviet Government on 21st September by Her Majesty's Embassy in Moscow concerning the Soviet Government's proposal for a new Geneva Conference on Laos. In that Note it was stated that the United Kingdom

Government did not propose to comment in substance at that time; that the Security Council was seized of the question and had established a sub-committee to make inquiries and to report to it; and that once that report had been received the Security Council would no doubt consider any proposals which might be put forward.

The United Kingdom Government have now received the report of the Security Council Sub-Committee, and they therefore wish to explain to the Soviet Government their attitude towards the Soviet Government's proposal for a new Geneva Conference to which the International Commission for Supervision and Control for Laos would report. They wish first to stress that the United Kingdom Government wish to co-operate with the Soviet Government in maintaining the Geneva Settlement. There is, however, more than one way of doing this, and the United Kingdom Government are unable to agree with the Soviet proposal for the following reasons:

(a) An integral part of the Soviet proposal seems to be that the International Commission should re-convene. As the United Kingdom Government have repeatedly explained to the Soviet Government, they are not willing to try to impose the International Commission on the Laotian Government who are unwilling to agree that it should re-convene. The United Kingdom Government do not consider that the International Commission is indispensable to the maintenance of the Geneva Settlement. What is essential is that both sides should observe their obligations under that Settlement.
(b) The matters about which the Laotian Government complain, i.e. interference by North Viet Nam in Laotian affairs and encouragement by North Viet Nam of the rebellion in Laos, though they are, it is true, in violation of the Geneva Settlement, are also contrary to the United Nations Charter. In these circumstances, Laos has exercised its undoubted right to bring the question before the United Nations and the United Nations is seized of it. In the United Kingdom Government's view, there is no reason why the United Nations should not deal with it or why it should abdicate its competence in favour of a new Geneva Conference.
(c) United Nations action will not in any way undermine the Geneva Settlement. In the United Kingdom Government's view, both sides should observe their obligations under that Settlement. They consider that United Nations action to deal with the problem of Laos should contribute to those obligations being observed and will, therefore, rather than undermining the Geneva Settlement, assist in seeing that it is maintained.

There would be no problem in Laos if the North Viet Namese authorities were to cease their encouragement and assistance to the Pathet Lao rebels and if the latter were to end the rebellion and to act in accordance with Laotian law. The United Kingdom Government hope that all concerned, including the Soviet Government, will use their influence to see that the Geneva Settlement is observed and, in particular, that the rebellion is brought to an end. This would make a far more certain contribution to peace than the holding of a new Geneva Conference.

Oral Answers to Questions — MIDDLE EAST

Diplomatic Relations

Mr. W. Yates: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the names of the countries in the Middle East, which are members of the United Nations Organisation, with which Great Britain has no diplomatic relations; what are the reasons; and what progress has been made to restore normal diplomatic relations with these members of the United Nations Organisation.

Mr. Healey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to restore normal diplomatic relations with the United Arab Republic.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The United Arab Republic and Saudi Arabia are the two countries concerned.
The Egyptian Government broke off diplomatic relations with this country on 1st November, 1956. At present we have a British Property Commission in Cairo. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said on 24th June in this House, we should like to have fuller diplomatic representation in Cairo.
The Saudi Arabian Government broke off diplomatic relations on 6th November, 1956, giving as their reason the Suez conflict.
There are no obstacles on the side of Her Majesty's Government to the resumption of diplomatic relations, and the Saudi Arabian Government have been so informed for a long time past.

Mr. Yates: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his reply will be satisfactory to the people of this country, who will be glad to know that there is no obstacle to resuming relations with the Arab world, in particular the United Arab Republic and Saudi Arabia?

Mr. Healey: Can the Foreign Secretary say whether there is any truth in reports that diplomatic relations with the United Arab Republic may be resumed before the New Year? Secondly, can he say whether the dispute over the Buraimi Oasis is still an obstacle to diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia?

Mr. Lloyd: In reply to the first supplementary question, we have had no

communication through official channels to that effect. As regards the second matter, our view is that if there is a dispute between two countries, that is a reason for having diplomatic relations so that it can be discussed.

Mr. Wyatt: What is the Foreign Secretary actually doing to try to get diplomatic relations with the United Arab Republic, apart from just stating that he is willing to have them again?

Mr. Lloyd: I think a clear statement to that effect is the best contribution we can make.

Yemen (Relations)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further developments have taken place in respect of Yemeni-British relationships; and what alteration of the diplomatic status of our representative in Taiz is contemplated.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The situation on the Aden-Yemen border has been quiet for many months. As hon. Members will know, the Governor of Aden and Lady Luce are visiting Taiz as guests of Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires, and although this is a private visit contacts established on occasions of this kind may be valuable in improving relations.
A change in the status of diplomatic representatives would be a matter for discussion between the two Governments.

Mr. Sorensen: Does this mean that political developments within the Yemen are encouraging in the direction of more friendly relationships between the Yemen and this country?

Mr. Lloyd: I think I should prefer to confine myself to the points in my Answer. First of all, things have been quiet for many months, and that is a good thing. Secondly, there is this private visit which will enable contacts to be made by the Governor and Lady Luce, and that, again, I think is a good thing.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Armaments

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in order to produce a favourable atmosphere for the Summit Conference, he will instruct the United Kingdom


representatives at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to oppose the issue of nuclear weapons to German forces, to object to Germany being allowed to build bigger warships, and to express disapproval of United States arms firms placing North Atlantic Treaty Organisation contracts in Germany.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: German forces are not given control of nuclear weapons.
Any proposal about warships will have to be considered on its merits.
There are no such things as North Atlantic Treaty Organisation contracts. The Answer to the hon. Member's question is therefore "No, Sir."

Mr. Zilliacus: Is it not a fact that American firms are placing large contracts in Germany for the making of weapons for the use of N.A.T.O. forces, and is not the whole policy of increasing German military power, without demanding guarantees about German foreign policy, one fraught with considerable danger and calculated to make the success of a Summit Conference more difficult?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. The policy of the rearming of Germany was initiated from the other side of the House without any question of the control of German foreign policy. I think it has been the right policy, because we must have collective defence in Western Europe.

Submarines

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government, as a member of the Western European Union, has now agreed to permit Western Germany to build submarines; and how many.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No request for amendment to the provision of the Revised Brussels Treaty about German manufacture of submarines has been made.

Mr. Shinwell: Does that Answer mean that Western Germany is not going to be permitted to build submarines?

Mr. Lloyd: The Question which the right hon. Gentleman asked me was:
… whether Her Majesty's Government … has now agreed to permit Western Germany to build submarines; and how many.

As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, no amendment has taken place. Under the terms of the Brussels Treaty, Western Germany was allowed to build submarines up to a tonnage of 350 tons.

Missiles

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the permission granted to Western Germany by the Western European Union, of which Her Majesty's Government is a member, how many missiles Western Germany will be allowed to manufacture; and what is the nature of such missiles.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Under the provisions of Protocol III to the revised Brussels Treaty, Germany has undertaken not to manufacture any long-range or guided missiles other than guided anti-tank missiles and surface-to-air and air-to-air guided missiles for anti-aircraft defence.
The only restriction on numbers is that Germany cannot maintain armaments in excess of the quantity required for its national forces, these in turn being limited by Protocol II of the Treaty.

Mr. Shinwell: Would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, although the Labour Government agreed to a measure of rearmament for Western Germany, it was never contemplated that Western Germany should either build submarines or be allowed to have these short-range missiles? Is he aware that the Minister of State, in reply to a Question by me last week, said that these missiles had no warheads? What kind of missiles are they if they do not require warheads?

Mr. Lloyd: I suspect that what my hon. Friend said was that they had no nuclear warheads. There is a difference, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, between a nuclear warhead and a high-explosive warhead. On the main matter of principle, which I quite agree is an important one, I have been studying what the right hon. Gentleman said at the time that he recommended this policy. He said "subject to certain safeguards". There are certain safeguards in the Brussels Treaty, and it is a matter of judgment with regard to their application.

Mr. Warbey: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say when he will lay on the Table the text of the revision of the Brussels Treaty permitting Germany to make these missiles?

Mr. Lloyd: Not without notice.

Mr. Warbey: I have asked for it already.

Arms Production (W.E.U. Reports)

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make available in a White Paper the reports of the Armaments Control Agency of Western European Union on their inspection of West German arms production.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No, Sir. These reports are secret.

Mr. Warbey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people, including many of my hon. and right hon. Friends, were induced to accept German armament only by the argument that it would be subject to control in the framework of Western European Union and the revised Brussels Treaty? Is it not, therefore, very important that we should know the extent to which the British Government are conniving at the gradual evasion on the restriction of German armaments and armament production?

Mr. Lloyd: I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman's endorsement of the policy of German rearmament, subject to that qualification. Much of the information which he seeks is contained in the Annual Report of the W.E.U. Council to the Assembly. The last Annual Report is in the Library, and I suggest that the hon. Member studies it.

Former Nazis (Judicial Appointments)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in his discussions with Chancellor Adenauer, he will draw attention to the appointment of former Nazis to judicial positions in Germany, and urge that action be taken to replace them.

Mr. A. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what date he received the additional information sent to him by the hon. Member for West Ham, North, containing documents, photostats and charges against existing West German jurists that they collaborated with the Hitler régime and were responsible for crimes against humanity; and, since this information and that previously sent to him involve charges affecting some 1,000 former Nazi judges, and the West German Government have not yet supplied him with their promised report on the investigation into these charges, if he will, during the official visit of Chancellor Adenauer on 17th November, raise this matter with him, with a view to obtaining a complete answer to all of the cases mentioned in the documents submitted.

Mr. R. Allan: The documents referred to by the hon. Member for West Ham. North (Mr. A. Lewis) were received on 9th November. They have been referred to our Embassy in Bonn as this is a matter for the Federal German Government.
I cannot disclose what subjects may be discussed during my right hon. Friend's confidential exchange of views with Dr. Adenauer.

Mr. Swingler: Will the Joint Under-Secretary ask his right lion, and learned Friend to use the opportunity of these conversations with Chancellor Adenauer to impress on him that one of the best contributions to improving Anglo-German relations would be to root out of power former German militarists and Nazis in Germany and to provide the long-promised reform, which has been repeatedly mentioned in this House and on the need for which evidence has been constantly submitted to the Foreign Office?

Mr. Allan: I have no doubt that my right hon. and learned Friend heard the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. We have not indicated that we would issue a report. What we have done is to refer to statements made by the Land Ministers of Justice in the Federal Republic who said that they would investigate all these reports as they came up, and are continuing to do so. They will not give us reports on individual cases.

Re-unification

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent it remains Her Majesty's Government's policy, as affirmed in the House on 19th February last, to reunite Germany within a framework agreed and guaranteed by the four Powers, to consult Germans from both sides of Germany as to the methods of unification, to make the stage at which free elections should take place in the process of unification a matter for negotiation, and not to regard the acceptance of free elections as a pre-condition for progress of any kind; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The views of Her Majesty's Government on how Germany should be reunified are set out in the Western Peace Plan presented at the Geneva Conference in May. It was printed in Cmnd. 797.

Mr. Zilliacus: With great respect, that is not a reply to my Question. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept the three points laid down by the Minister of State on 19th February—first, that Germany should be reunited
within a framework to be agreed and guaranteed by the four Powers"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] I am quoting. Secondly—
It is not our position"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] I am quoting. I am entitled to quote. We must get an answer to this very important question. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. If hon. Members will allow the hon. Member to continue I will judge when he gets out of order through the sheer length of his supplementary question, and we shall get on more quickly.

Mr. Zilliacus: I am still quoting—
German reunification within a framework to be agreed and guaranteed by the four Powers …including free elections … It is not our position that free elections throughout Germany must be the first step in any process leading to reunification and that acceptance of this is a pre-condition for progress of any kind …there must be free elections at tome point, but there is room for negotiation about the exact point at which they should have to take place.

Mr. Speaker: Order. In the interests of other hon. Members, the hon. Member must make his supplementary question more concise.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: On a point of order. Recently, Mr. Speaker, you asked for shorter supplementary questions. The hon. Member's Question takes up seven lines on the Order Paper. Would you make a Ruling that in a supplementary question there should not be more than two questions, and not more than two sentences to any one question?

Mr. Speaker: The Ruling is that a question, whether supplementary or not, should not be of inordinate length.

Mr. Zilliacus: I am sorry to have to quote this, but the Foreign Secretary evaded my point. He would not answer. The last part of the quotation is:
In our Note of 16th February we proposed that German advisers should be called to the conference from both sides to be consulted, I have no doubt that the method of reunification could be one of the topics upon which their views would be listened to."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th November, 1959; Vol. 600, c. 575.]
That is the thing.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member's supplementary question is of inordinate length. Mr. Hector Hughes, Question No. 48.

Mr. Zilliacus: Is that still the Government's policy?

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT

Anglo-Egyptian Financial Agreement

Mr. W. Yates: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has so far been made in the implementation of the Anglo-Egyptian Financial Agreement; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. R. Allan: By the first week of November, 1,552 applications for de-sequestration had been submitted to the Egyptian authorities. Of these, 1,363 had been accepted as being in order and 644 release agreements had either been signed or were awaiting signature. The value of the property released, up to 11th November, had reached over 60 per cent. of the total declared value of the assets registered with the Foreign Office.

Mr. Yates: Whilst thanking the Minister for that statement, may I ask whether he is aware that reports are being received to the effect that, although arrangements were made for British subjects to transfer £5,000 of their assets out of Egypt, they are not able to remove even £100? How can he account for this?

Mr. Allan: I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would give me particulars of the instances he has mentioned, when I shall be glad to look into them.

Mr. Yates: I think it would be suitable if I raised the matter on the Adjournment, Mr. Speaker, with your permission, and so I beg to give notice to that effect.

Mr. James Zarb

Mr. Peart: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations he is making to secure the early release of Mr. James Zarb, who is still imprisoned in Egypt.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Our pleasure at Mr. Swinburn's release was qualified by the knowledge that Mr. Zarb remained in custody. I am deeply concerned about Mr. Zarb's case, but I ask the House to accept that public discussion of this matter is likely to retard the result we all desire.

Mr. Peart: Yes, but I think it is right to raise these issues here because James Swinburn has been referred to as my constituent and I was pleased that the general amnesty applied to him. I should have thought that, in view of the better relations between this country and that part of the world, it might well be possible for an approach to be made, because I believe that James Zarb should not be forgotten.

Mr. Lloyd: I do not disagree with anything the hon. Gentleman has said.

Oral Answers to Questions — WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement about the future of Western European Union.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The Western European Union was created in the first

place as a treaty organisation to permit the Federal Republic of Germany to play its full and proper part in the Western alliance. For this purpose certain military undertakings and safeguards were enshrined in the Treaty. It will continue to be a main task of the Western European Union to see that these are properly observed.
There are also the institutional aspects of Western European Union, the Assembly, the executive agencies, and the intergovernmental Council. These institutions all have a useful part to play. The Council in particular provides an existing and convenient forum for consultation between the Government of the United Kingdom and the six Governments of the European communities. I am now engaged in a series of discussions as to whether this function of the Council should assume increasing importance in the future.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Whilst thanking my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether it is proposed to move the headquarters of Western European Union from London to Paris? May I also ask him if he will resist any tendency to absorb Western European Union into N.A.T.O., as this organisation of sovereign European nations may have a distinctive and valuable part to play?

Mr. Lloyd: I agree with the latter part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. On the first part, I think there is no more delicate subject for these various organisations than where their headquarters should be situated, and all I will say is that the matter is under discussion.

Oral Answers to Questions — TURKEY (WATER SUPPLY SCHEME)

Mr. Oram: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what offers of credit were made by Her Majesty's Government to Turkey in connection with building a new water supply for Ankara; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. R. Allan: None, Sir.

Mr. Oram: But is the hon. Gentleman aware of the report that the Soviet Union has offered a long-term credit of £20 million for this purpose, and that it


is said that offers from Western countries, including Great Britain, are distinctly unfavourable, stiffer, and unattractive? Why is it that we cannot match the terms of the Soviet Union in such aid to under-developed countries?

Mr. Allan: The Turkish Government made no request to Her Majesty's Government for help with the Ankara scheme. I have seen reports of the Russian offer but I have no information to confirm it, or to the effect that it has been accepted. We are channelling very considerable aid to Turkey through our contribution to the O.E.E.C. aid scheme.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA (NATIONAL PRODUCTIVITY COUNCIL)

Mr. J. Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) what official arrangements were made for the reception, entertainment and enlightenment of a road transport productivity team recently sent here by the National Productivity Council of India; and if he will make a statement;
(2) whether he is aware that a road transport productivity team, consisting of some of the leading personalities in the national and private sectors of transport in India, were, while on an officially organised visit to the United Kingdom, accommodated in an hotel in which sharing accommodation of four persons per room was provided for them; and why this was done.

Mr. R. Allan: The road transport productivity team was one of six Indian teams which have come here in the last two months under the United States Third Country Training Scheme, for which the British Council acts as agent in the United Kingdom. Her Majesty's Government were not directly involved.
This team, which had asked for double rooms, arrived at very short notice during the Motor Show. It was difficult to find any accommodation for them but eventually three-bedded rooms were booked. On the morning after the team's arrival the British Council learned that the hotel had, without telling them, allocated four to a room. They immediately protested and were able to make arrangements to move four of the party to another hotel. From then on all the team were accommodated in single or double rooms.

Mr. Harvey: Has my hon. Friend seen the special booklet that was printed regarding the quite high-powered delegation that this team comprised? Is he aware that they certainly thought they were here as official guests of this country and that they drew the most unfavourable comparisons between the treatment they received here and the treatment they received in Germany? Does he not think that the terms of reference of the British Council need to be overhauled if it is to do this sort of thing for us, and will he say whether, indeed, if it can entertain our guests only on a shoestring budget, the British Council is the right body to do this sort of thing at all?

Mr. Allan: I am glad of the opportunity to make clear that the members of the team were in no way official guests. Their trip and everything concerned with it was paid for by the I.C.A. The British Council was merely acting as an agent and under instruction. I am, naturally, very sorry that there were reasons for complaint, but, as I said in my main Answer, Her Majesty's Government are not directly involved.

Mr. Driberg: Can the hon. Gentleman say which was the hotel which behaved so disgracefully?

Mr. Allan: I should have to have notice of that supplementary question.

Mr. Shinwell: Are we to understand that guests have to be officials in order to be properly accommodated in this country?

Mr. Allan: The members of the team were not guests of this country. There are many people who come to this country and cannot get proper accommodation.

Oral Answers to Questions — ODER-NEISSE FRONTIER

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations he has received from the French Government with regard to the need for joint recognition of the Oder-Neisse frontier; and whether he will make a statement on this matter in order to dispel widespread doubt about the policy of Her Majesty's Government concerning the future of this frontier.

Mr. W. Griffiths: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what


reply he gave on his visit to Paris to the French Government's representations to the effect that Germany's existing frontier with Poland should be internationally recognised.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have received no representations from the French Government about this matter. For a statement of the views of Her Majesty's Government I would refer hon. Members to the reply given by my hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus) on 11th November.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that hon. Members in all parts of the House who attended the Inter-Parliamentary Union Conference at Warsaw last September were very impressed, both publicly and privately, by the Polish case, and as General de Gaulle has now made such a definite statement, which has given wholesale satisfaction throughout Europe, has not the time arrived for Britain to associate herself with that definite statement?

Mr. Lloyd: If the hon. Member will again look at the reply which was given on 11th November he will see precisely the position of Her Majesty's Government. I think that the supplementary question asked by his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) on 11th November is very pertinent, and I ask him to study that again.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that hon. Members from both sides of the House on a recent delegation to West Germany saw in a Bonn school a printed poster headed:
What we must never forget",
and underneath was a map of Germany divided into three—West Germany, East Germany and the lost provinces? Are there not dangers to peace in bringing up children with those ideas?

Mr. Lloyd: The Question that I was asked dealt with representations from the French Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — CUBA

Supply of Arms

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what agreement has now been reached with the Cuban Government as to the supply of military aircraft and other weapons.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No agreement has been reached with the Cuban Government in regard to the supply of military aircraft or other weapons. The Cuban Government have asked the Hawker Aircraft Company to exchange the seventeen Sea-Fury aircraft now owned by Cuba for an equivalent number of Hawker Hunters. Approval of the necessary export licence is under consideration.

Mr. Wyatt: Is the Government's reluctance to supply the Cuban Government with military aircraft due to pressure from America? Is the Minister aware that Her Majesty's Government's reluctance to give the new Cuban Government weapons compares very unfavourably in the Cuban mind with the alacrity with which they gave the old régime weapons?

Mr. Lloyd: I can assure the hon. Member—I am very glad to see him back in the house again; he has questioned me many times in the past—that all relevant factors will be taken into consideration, including his support for the suggestion that we should license this export.

Trade

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the need to expand trade with Cuba, what is Her Majesty's Government's policy in this respect towards Cuba.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Her Majesty's Government are anxious to encourage the development of trade with Cuba as with other countries.

Mr. Wyatt: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the main reason for the dispute between America and Cuba at the moment is the Cuban resentment at the low prices which Cuba can obtain for its raw materials in America? As we are very big buyers of Cuban raw materials, could not we use this as an opportunity to mediate between Cuba and the United States?

Mr. Lloyd: The Question deals with development in trade with Cuba, and I am all for developing that trade.

Oral Answers to Questions — PASSPORTS

Mr. Hirst: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the recent evidence of the ineffectiveness of


passports as a method of controlling identity, whether he will now abolish the use of them for British subjects.

Mr. R. Allan: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to him on 18th February last.

Mr. Hirst: Is not my hon. Friend aware that that has been a stock Answer for some thirty years and that there has been considerable development in that time? Is he aware that thousands of people in West Yorkshire are able to go around with passports which, it is alleged, have been faked and sold on the black market in Eastern countries, and that police evidence is mounting every year to the effect that the least difficulty for an undesirable in gaining entry into this country is to obtain a passport?

Mr. Allan: Yes. All countries require proof of identity from those who seek to cross their frontiers. Most Western European countries have national identity cards. In some cases, those are accepted in place of passports. We do not have identity cards and therefore we have to stick to passports.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN SECRETARY (VISIT TO PARIS)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) if he will make a statement on his visit to France, in particular, in relation to the Summit Meeting;
(2) what new proposals he has to make, as a result of his talks in Paris, on the relationship of Great Britain to the Common Market.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have nothing to add to the statement which I made in the House on 16th November.

Mr. Grimond: The Foreign Secretary finished the exchange of questions and answers on that day by saying that there was substantial agreement between him and the French. Are we to conclude from that that we now support the claim of the French to be an independent nuclear Power, and that we are to make no further representations about the tests in Africa? On the Common Market, while there has been much generalisation about fairer trade, we are doing nothing to protect certain industries in

this country which will suffer very much if the Common Market comes into being without our being associated with it.

Mr. Lloyd: If the hon. Gentleman studies HANSARD, he will see that he has not accurately described my last answer. There are other Questions about the Sahara tests on the Order Paper and I will deal with that matter when we reach them. On the Common Market, we are very conscious of the need in these negotiations to preserve not only the interests of particular industries, but also those of the country as a whole.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION

Spain

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations have been made by member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and by which States, for the inclusion of Spain in the Organisation.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: None, Sir.

Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the proposed visits of President Eisenhower and Dr. Adenauer to Spain in the near future look very much like a sinister move in that direction and are deplored by democrats in this country? Will he point out to those two leaders that it is very bad taste, politically, for them to visit that country where at the moment 271 men and women are in prison for political crimes, some of them for periods of up to twenty years, and that there is no political democracy in Spain today?

Mr. Lloyd: There are many matters about which I can be fairly questioned in the House, but the movements of President Eisenhower or the head of the German Government are not matters about which it is fair to question me. I doubt whether it would be wise or expedient to make the representations which the hon. Lady suggests

Mr. Healey: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the inclusion of Spain in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation would be not only an affront to the deeply-held convictions of many millions


of people in countries which are members of that Organisation, but also inconsistent with the terms of the Treaty itself?

Mr. Lloyd: The question which I was asked was, "What representations have been made?", and the question of membership of N.A.T.O. is a matter for all the members of that Organisation.

United Kingdom Contribution

Mr. W. Griffiths: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the amount of Great Britain's contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; and what official proposals for the increase of that contribution have been put forward by the United States of America.

Mr. R. Allan: The estimated United Kingdom contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation budgets for 1959–60 is £2,120,000. No proposals for its increase have been put forward by the United States.

Mr. Griffiths: Is it not a fact that President Eisenhower has said that the allies of the United States in N.A.T.O. will have to make a greater contribution in the future? Can the hon. Member give an assurance that when that request is received there will be no further increase in the United Kingdom contribution, at least until there has been a Summit Conference?

Mr. Allan: As my right hon. Friend made clear in the debate on the Address, we regard this matter as of first importance and are ready to discuss it. But it is a matter for discussion when the Ministers meet towards the end of next month.

Oral Answers to Questions — NUCLEAR TESTS

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the recent official communication received from the United States Secretary of State referring to a possible unilateral resumption of nuclear tests by the United States of America, failing agreement on this subject within a few weeks at Geneva, he will propose a gentleman's agreement between the three Powers, whereby each undertakes not to resume tests unless one of the others does so first.

Mr. V. Yates: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet considered the recent official communication received from the United States Secretary of State regarding a possible resumption of nuclear tests; and what current proposals Her Majesty's Government have for reaching agreement in this matter.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I assume that the hon. Members are referring to an answer which Mr. Herter gave to a question at his Press conference on 12th November. He said:
That is a very intricate subject. I would personally favour the extension if it were a matter of weeks only while we were still talking. With respect to a longer moratorium than that, I would have serious doubts. However, none of us know how these talks are going to turn out. Sometimes there are favourable developments, sometimes unfavourable, and until we know how the talks are likely to turn out I think it is foolish to speculate in advance about any extended moratorium.
So far as Her Majesty's Government's own position is concerned, that was stated by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 30th July.

Mr. Allaun: But would not such a gentleman's agreement prevent the real danger of America resuming her tests, no doubt with Britain, Russia, and other Powers following suit?

Mr. Lloyd: These negotiations, which have been going on for a long time, not with a complete lack of success, are at the moment in a critical, and, I think, decisive phase. I think the best thing is to let negotiations at Geneva continue and try to get agreement. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we will do everything we can to try to get agreement with the other two countries on these matters.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUMMIT CONFERENCE

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in his discussions with Chancellor Adenauer, he will urge the calling of a Summit Conference at the earliest possible moment to consider Germany's future on the basis of halting the arms race inside Germany.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I cannot conceive of a Summit Conference at which the future of Germany would not be discussed.

Mr. Swingler: Is the Foreign Secretary endeavouring to press for a Summit Conference at the earliest possible moment, or is the position now that as a result of pressure from Paris and Bonn he is abandoning this objective? Is he now using his opportunities of discussing matters with the Chancellor of West Germany to press for an early Summit Conference, or is it to be postponed for six months?

Mr. Lloyd: I tried to make the Government's point of view clear on Monday. I said that the point is not to have a Summit Conference for the sake of a Summit Conference; it is in order to achieve some results. The main result we want to get is a continuation of the present relaxation of tension. Another factor which can contribute to that is personal visits between the heads of the various Governments. Mr. Khrushchev was offered the opportunity of going to France between 20th February and 31st March, and he decided to fix 15th March for his visit. I think that that is a good thing, and that it will help to reduce tension. I hope that we shall have a Summit Meeting as soon as practicable after that. The object is to maintain the momentum behind the relaxation of tension.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Aberdeen Harbour (Facilities)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that defects in the port facilities at Aberdeen harbour threaten to increase unemployment there; and if he will consult with the Secretary of State for Scotland, with a view to planning a means of rectifying the defects and averting the threat of increased unemployment there.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Edward Heath): I am in touch with my colleagues who are examining, with the Harbour Commissioners, the question of pontoon dock facilities at Aberdeen. It is too soon to assume that any changes which may be necessary will result in a reduction in employment.

Mr. Hughes: Is not the Minister aware that Aberdeen has been waiting for rectification of these matters for a long

time? Further, is he aware that Aberdeen has unduly high unemployment, and lacks industry, and will he again consult the Secretary of State for Scotland with a view to seeing that something is done for Aberdeen in these matters?

Mr. Heath: There was a meeting of representatives of the Harbour Commissioners, the Ministry of Transport, the Admiralty and the Scottish Home Department on 5th November, and various possibilities are now being pursued.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT

Dorset

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Labour the amount of unemployment in the County of Dorset as a whole, and in the Bridport area in particular; and how this compares with the national average.

Mr. Heath: At 12th October, the number of persons registered as unemployed in the County of Dorset was 1,713, of whom 117 were registered at the Bridport Employment Exchange. The unemployment percentage rate for each of these areas was 1·9, the same as for Great Britain as a whole.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: I thank my right hon. Friend for that satisfactory reply. Will he continue to watch the situation, in view of seasonal unemployment in the Bridport area?

Mr. Heath: indicated assent.

BALLOTS FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

Inland Waterways (Report)

Mr. James: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 4th December, I shall call attention to the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Inland Waterways, and move a Resolution.

National Disaster Funds

Mr. MacColl: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 4th December, I shall call attention to the need for an inquiry into the working of national disaster funds, and move a Resolution.

Political Parties (Accounts)

Mr. Mellish: Without much hope, I beg to give notice that on Friday, 4th December, I shall call attention to the need for legislation to ensure that all political parties publish their accounts annually, showing all sources of income and expenditure, and move a Resolution.

BILL PRESENTED

PROFESSIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO MEDICINE

Bill to provide for the establishment of a Council, boards and disciplinary committees for certain professions supplementary to medicine; to provide for the registration of members of those professions, for regulating their professional education and professional conduct and for cancelling registration in cases of misconduct; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by Mr. Walker-Smith; supported by Mr. Maclay, Sir E. Boyle, Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith, and Miss Pitt; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 42.]

Orders of the Day — MR. SPEAKER MORRISON'S RETIREMENT BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.33 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I said, when I made a short statement to the House last Thursday, that this Bill is in accordance with long precedent, both in the provision it makes and in the terms in which it is expressed. The only deviation of substance from precedent is the provision for a widow's pension, which I will refer to later.
The office of Speaker of this House is in itself an embodiment of tradition and the Government feel sure that the House will wish to maintain the traditional form of this Bill. There is yet another reason for keeping the traditional provision for a Speaker's retirement. It is important that the retirement of the Speaker, no less than his tenure of office, should, as far as possible, be above political strains and stresses of the day, to make manifest the fact—we should be deeply grateful, Mr. Speaker, to your predecessors, the distinguished holders of this office, that it is a fact—that, once a Member is elected to the Chair, he is impartial. The House will surely agree that we must consider each Bill for the provision of a Speaker's retirement as impartially as we can.
The Bill thus provides for a pension of £4,000 a year, and the first point I should like to make clear to the House is that this has been the amount of the Speaker's pension since the Act of 1832. It is an arbitrary figure, unrelated to the Speaker's salary or the length of his tenure of office. It has been deemed by successive Parliaments to be the right figure and we should think long and deeply before altering it.
The Preamble to the Bill repeats the Resolution which the House agreed to last Thursday after reciting the traditional events leading up to the Resolution and the introduction of the Bill. Whatever may have been the intention, a century and a half ago, behind the


heart-warming phrase mentioned in the previous debate
in the most beneficial manner",
I wish to assure the House that these words have no practical effect now. The pension is paid out of the Consolidated Fund and is subject to tax in exactly the same way as any other pension or emolument.
The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) wondered whether those words implied any tax relief or, as he said in his speech, "tax arrangement", for Lord Dunrossil and his wife if she should draw a widow's pension. I assure the House that they do not. The words do not form part of the Bill itself. I am sure that we should all like to see them retained in the Resolution and the Preamble to the Bill. It is not often nowadays that our Statutes are allowed to contain these small departures from the draftsman's austerity or the ultimate severity of Her Majesty's Treasury.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether, under the Act of 1832, any allowance was made for the Speaker's wife? When did this special allowance for the Speaker's wife come into the Act?

Mr. Butler: If the hon. Member had listened to my opening remarks with his usual acuity he would have heard that I said that the only departure from precedent in the Bill is the reference to a pension for the Speaker's wife in the case of widowhood. I shall be explaining that later. It is a departure from precedent. It has a parallel action in other spheres, but it is a departure from precedent in this Bill.
The Bill provides a fixed date for the beginning of the pension. This was also done on the last occasion, since Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown, like Lord Dunrossil, retired at the end of a Parliament. The date is the day when the new Speaker is elected. Up to that date the former Speaker remains entitled to his salary, also under the Act of 1832. The proviso to Clause 1 provides that half of the pension shall be suspended while the pensioner holds another appointment under the Crown with a

remuneration equal to or greater than the pension.
In walking about the House and talking to my hon. Friends and other hon. Members I have noticed that there is an idea that this provision for abatement has been brought into the Bill on purpose or by anticipation. I shall be saying something about anticipation shortly. It has not been brought in on purpose, since an identical provision has been made in the Speakers' annuity Bills since 1817. Therefore, there is a respectable precedent for this abatement. It is in no way novel; it is not related to this particular case. It was inserted in the Bill entirely on the precedent of Speakers' Retirement Bills and, therefore, I repeat that the only difference in this Bill, from the Acts of 1832 and 1817, is the novelty of dealing with the wife of Lord Dunrossil.
The purpose of the abatement is to prevent the enjoyment in full of a pension for one public office and the pay for another at the same time, a principle to which successive Governments have attached some importance. I hope that the House will agree that we should not depart from this principle or precedent in relation to this great and ancient office of Speaker.
I am advised that the post of Governor-General of Australia falls within the definition of an appointment under the Crown and, therefore, is covered by the provisions of the Bill in relation to abatement. I have seen certain allusions in the Press to this appointment being in some way connected with a decision made by Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Charles Pannell: No.

Mr. Butler: I have seen it in the Press and I do not want to follow it up more than to say that it is not so. The appointment is made by Her Majesty's Ministers in Australia, advising Her Majesty the Queen.
Lord Dunrossil himself has authorised me to say this, and it may be of interest to the House, that, following his decision to retire as Speaker, he had planned a very different life for himself in 1960. He told me he had accepted many engagements for next year, for example,


the presidency of the Three Counties Agricultural Show, several school speech days, and so on. I state these facts in relation to Mr. Speaker Morrison lest there should be any impression which would be misconceived that his decision to retire was in any way caused by the prospect of his appointment to this new high office.
Lord Dunrossil has informed me he was acutely sensible of the very great honour implied by the offer of this appointment. He has, as right hon. and hon. Members know, a very great interest in Parliamentary democracy throughout the Commonwealth and he felt—and I hope that the House will agree with him—that the growth of Parliamentary government in the Commonwealth would be forwarded by the decision of the Ministers of a great self-governing country to submit to Her Majesty the name of an ex-Speaker of the House of Commons as their Governor-General.
The House will understand that there could be no question here of any conflict of loyalties as between the House of Commons and the United Kingdom Executive. The invitation came from Her Majesty's Ministers in Australia and Mr. Speaker Morrison carefully refrained from mentioning the matter to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I am sure that this is in accord with the constitutional position.
Having listened to the previous debate and having heard from many hon. Members, I feel that some would have preferred that the ex-Speaker should have abated the remainder of his pension or that we should not pass this Bill. I want to make it quite clear that while there is every legitimate right for hon. Members to express their opinion in this House—and I am sure that it would be accepted by us all, including Lord Dunrossil, in the spirit in which they did so—Her Majesty's Ministers and Her Majesty's Government do not feel they could influence or affect Lord Dunrossil's judgment in this matter. They do feel, however, and the Government feel, that, taking precedent into account and looking to the future, it is essential that this Bill should be enacted. It would be in our view indefensible to single out Lord Dunrossil for less considerate treatment than his predecessors or perhaps his successors.
I do not think that it is necessary for me to pay a special tribute to our ex-Speaker. We all knew him very well. He served us for eight years. We shall miss his presence in the Chair. He was a distinguished Speaker of a very friendly and considerate character and we wish him well in his high office overseas.
Her Majesty's Government are no more able to comment on the emoluments which are to be paid to the Governor-General of Australia, because that is really not our business. I might get into great trouble if I made comment on this matter, but I should point out that in fact, the salary of the Governor-General, calculated in sterling, amounts to £8,000. This is the only remark I am going to make about it. I understand that the expenses attaching to the office are very heavy and from what I know I do not think that Lord Dunrossil would wish to forgo the abated pension for which the Bill provides, in view of the many and heavy payments which lie before him.

Clause 2 of the Bill is the only change in tradition. This is the first time that provision is made for the widow of a Speaker after his retirement. The House, I think, will probably agree that this innovation is now necessary. This is the answer to the intervention which has been made by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). If hon. Members will look around, they will see that provision for widows and dependants has become widespread in pensions schemes since the last war and is now a feature common to all such schemes in the public sector. Such provision was introduced, for example, for civil servants in 1949 and for the judiciary in 1950. In those schemes, the normal widow's pension is one-third of the husband's pension and that is what the Bill provides for Lady Dunrossil.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: rose—

Mr. Butler: Perhaps if I get this wrong the hon. Member may then intervene.
In other public service pensions schemes the figure is normally provided for a widow and dependants either by contributions from salary or out of the


lump sum which is part of the retirement benefit, but the Speaker has no lump sum from which deductions could be made and annual contributions during his tenure of office would hardly be appropriate if only that such contributions need to be related to a long period of service.
Of course, it would have been possible, in drafting the Bill, to reduce Mr. Speaker's pension in order to provide a widow's entitlement, but, in view of the fact that the amount of this pension has remained unaltered for a century and more, the Government considered that a reduction of the sum is out of the question. We are not proposing to increase the pension as such, but we think that providing widow's entitlement in addition to the traditional pension is by no means unreasonable in the circumstances.
Those are the facts of the Bill. I understand that hon. Members desire to criticise and examine it. Nevertheless, after mature reflection, the Government consider that the case for its passage is unanswerable and I trust that the House will give it its full support.

Mr. John Rankin: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer a question before he sits down?

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Gaitskell.

3.46 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: The Second Reading debate on this Bill takes place in rather unusual circumstances, circumstances to which the Leader of the House has referred, namely, the appointment by Her Majesty of Lord Dunrossil to be Governor-General of Australia. I think that I am right in saying that this appointment was announced only after the proceedings leading to the introduction of the Bill had been begun.
While I shall have something to say about this new development in a moment, it should not, I think, divert or inhibit us from taking the customary opportunity of such an occasion to pay our tribute to the manner in which the former Speaker discharged his duties. He held this important office for eight years. This followed upon twenty years' service in this House, in the course of

which he held no fewer than six Ministerial offices. This was felt at the time of his election as Speaker to be something of a handicap, but, as I said on an earlier occasion, Lord Dunrossil speedily overcame that.
The importance of the office of Speaker in our House can scarcely be exaggerated. The whole of our proceedings are affected by the attitude of hon. Members to the Chair, an attitude which, happily, has almost always been one of genuine respect and regard, but the existence of this attitude is not something which is to be taken for granted. While one Parliament differs from another, some, perhaps, being more easy to handle than others, there is no doubt that respect for the Chair depends fundamentally upon the occupant of the Chair himself.
There is, to my mind, equally, no doubt that the former Speaker fully earned this respect by his conduct. His dignity, displayed in his commanding presence and resonant voice, his intellectual ability, shown by his swift interpretation and application of our highly complicated rules of procedure and conventions, his wit and humour, which frequently delighted the House—these are all qualities which are fresh in the memories of us all and we extend to him our thanks for his labours and our personal good wishes for the future. To Lady Dunrossil likewise, who fulfilled her duties as Mr. Speaker's wife so admirably, we wish to convey our sincere appreciation.
In the ordinary way, I should have been disposed to welcome the Bill without qualification, for I doubt whether any of us would deny the desirability of a pension for Mr. Speaker. For my part, I consider that the new provision to which the Leader of the House referred, by which a widow's pension will be available at one-third the rate of the full pension, is quite reasonable having regard to the other precedents which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned.
Some may cavil at the size of the pension. I can well understand such a reaction twenty or thirty years ago, but £4,000 a year today, although undoubtedly substantial, is not such a vast income as it once was.

Mr. Ellis Smith: It is not so bad, either.

Mr. Gaitskell: As my hon. Friend says, "It is not so bad, either", but my hon. Friend will no doubt be aware that it was worth, I suppose, when it was first introduced, about ten times what it is worth today. I do not think that it is excessive today in relation to the dignity or importance of the office or the pensions paid to other public servants.
Some hon. Members on this occasion, as on former occasions, may take the opportunity of pressing the claims of other subjects of Her Majesty to better provision for old age, including both old-age pensioners and Members of this House. These are issues of great social importance which move us all—and let no one under-rate the strong feelings which exist among hon. Members of the House on this matter. I hope that it will be possible to pursue the question of pensions for hon. Members in other ways quite speedily, but the fact that we think that more should be done for others is not, in my view, in itself a sufficient objection to the grant of a pension to the retiring Speaker.
It is not, however, these things which lead me to comment today on the Bill, but the unexpected development of the appointment of Lord Dunrossil to be Governor-General of Australia. It seems to me that this raises two issues of principle which cannot be ignored. First, we have to ask ourselves: is it right and desirable that a retiring Speaker should be offered and accept an office of this kind? There can be no doubt that it is highly unusual; indeed, almost unprecedented. There is no doubt that the expectation in the past has been that, when the Speaker retires from being Speaker, he retires from public life and public service altogether. There can be no doubt that in the past the pension has been justified, at least, on several occasions, so far as I know, largely on these grounds.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) drew my attention, in conversation, to some sentences uttered by the late Lord Baldwin on this matter which my hon. Friend, no doubt, Mr. Speaker, if he catches your eye, will quote in full to the House. I can say that they certainly bear out precisely what I think was Lord Baldwin's attitude to the Speaker's pension and the

reason why it was given. Although nothing has been laid down legally, it has, I think, been assumed—certainly it is my impression—that the Speaker is in somewhat the same position as a judge when he retires, rather than in the position of a civil servant, or an officer of the Armed Forces, who receives his pension automatically as part of a contract of service after a lifetime in a particular office.
There is, it is true, one exception to this, the appointment of Mr. Whitley to be chairman of the Governors of the B.B.C. in 1930. It is the only exception which I have been able to find, and I would only say that this is not quite of the same character as the circumstances which we are considering today because it did not occur, at any rate, for two years after Mr. Whitley's retirement, and it was—I do not think that any of us would say otherwise—not of quite the same character or carrying the same emoluments as that of Governor-General of Australia. Even so, I venture to doubt, looking back on it, whether it was a very desirable precedent.
The second question of principle is whether the retiring Speaker, if he accepts such an appointment, should, while holding it, continue to draw any part of his pension. The Bill provides, as earlier Bills have provided, for an abatement of one-half the pension if the retiring Speaker accepts any public office. I must say, in passing, that it is a curious anomaly that legally, at any rate, the retiring Speaker may accept private employment without any abatement of his pension whatever. One might well have supposed that the idea of accepting a private office would be more repugnant, in certain respects, than the acceptance of a public office.
The argument, as I have said, for the pension has been to a very large extent that the retiring Speaker does not take such an office, private or public, and therefore, if he does take one, one is bound to have some doubts about whether it is right and proper and desirable that he should draw the pension during the holding of that office.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the emoluments of the Governor-General of Australia. I see that it has


been said that these are not enough. If that is so—and it may well be the case—I venture to say that it is a matter for the Government of Australia to put right. It cannot really be argued as a reason for paying the retiring Speaker of the House of Commons a pension. If, on the other hand, the argument is that the retiring Speaker needs this additional pension for financial reasons, as he is quoted as saying in some newspapers, I can only say that that suggests that we should look at whether the pension itself justifies accepting outside employment.
My personal conclusion is that it is more desirable for a retiring Speaker not to accept an appointment of this or any other kind, but to be given a pension fully adequate on which to retire.
Finally, whatever the right or wrongs of this matter, I feel that it would be much better and a good deal of embarrassment would have been avoided if we could have had clarity. There has been, it seems to me, no clear ruling in the past. There is no clear dividing line. I think that the Leader of the House would agree with me that certain appointments he would regard as being thoroughly undesirable for a retiring Speaker to accept. It may be that we should try in future to lay things down a little more precisely. I have already given my opinion, but if it is said that that is too rigid, that we cannot really debar a retiring Speaker from accepting any office whatever, I think it desirable that we should lay down—we may not be able to do it now—what kind of appointments are to be accepted, what kind of appointments we regard as desirable and what kind we do not.
Having said that and made these comments, I wish to make it plain, also, that this is in no sense a party issue. It is essentially a matter for the House of Commons as a whole and, therefore, there can be no question of any party division on the matter. Each hon. Member must decide for himself what his attitude is to be should the matter be pressed to a Division. For my part, I shall only say that, having made my comments and recorded my criticism, I do not think that these are sufficiently strong to justify me in going into the Lobby against the Bill.

3.59 p.m.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: I, for one, regret that it is necessary to debate this matter at all, and I can assure the House that the points that I have to make will be few in number and short in presentation.
I think that we are all in agreement that the office of the Speakership is extremely onerous and that the Speaker should retire on a generous pension. Having said that, I must say that in my opinion the contrast between a pension of £4,000 a year to an ex-Speaker who has occupied the Chair for nine years and no pension at all to hon. Members who have served the House for twenty-five or thirty years is altogether disproportionate. The Bill which, I trust, we are now about to pass highlights this contrast. I am, personally, very much distressed at the knowledge that there are two or three dozen Members of this House who simply cannot afford to retire and who find that they are penniless if, peradventure, they happen to lose their seats.
I trust that the Governent, during the course of this Session, will bring forward Measures to alleviate further the poverty which we know still exists, particularly among old people and widows with children. But when we have done that, I hope that we shall at last do our duty by those who have given such long and faithful service to the House. I believe that a Member, after twenty-five or thirty years' service, should be able to retire on a pension of £1,000 a year or thereabouts, and I believe that the retirements which such a Measure would make possible would, generally speaking, be for the good of the House and the good of the nation.
I agree that this is not a party Measure, and I therefore do not feel embarrassed in saying that I believe that the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Leeds. West (Mr. C. Pannell) are quite right in their view that the appointment of an ex-Speaker to any office which is either in the gift of the Executive or dependent upon a recommendation from the Executive is not desirable. I happen to know Australia and have a great many relations there, and I have no doubt at all that the appointment of Lord Dunrossil, whom we all hold in such very high


esteem, will prove to be an exceedingly popular choice; but, nevertheless, for the reasons which the Leader of the Opposition has given, I believe that this is an undesirable precedent.
Finally—I want to say this, although I am sure that it will be a matter of controversy—I think that it was a very great pity that Lord Dunrossil thought fit to appear on television last Thursday. I do not believe that anyone who accepts such a high office as this—the gift of Her Majesty the Queen—should appear in public to be cross-examined about his motives for accepting it, about his means, or his health. I thought that it was exceedingly undignified, and I hope that this, also, will not be a precedent for the future.

4.2 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: Like the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Lindsay), I feel that there is a certain amount of embarrassment in discussing these personal cases, but it gives us an opportunity, which he has taken, of drawing attention to the extremely anomalous position of pensions in their entirety.
I think that the country, on the whole, behaves extremely shabbily to its pensioners and to its public servants in the matter of pensions. Teachers, members of the Armed Forces, civil servants and, indeed, Members of this House may suffer considerable hardship after long service to the public because of the inadequacy of their pension.
I have always been an opponent of the earnings rule. I consider that it has worked very unfairly. Now that the Government agree that people may earn a certain amount, there seems to me to be no logic in it whatsoever, because the only logical reason was, of course, that a man should retire entirely.
As to pensions to public servants of all kinds, we must accept that they are, in fact, part of the general reward to those servants for the work that they have done, and that a man who gives many years' service, as Mr. Speaker Morrison did to this House, has a right to expect a pension. It is noticeable that even Keir Hardie, as I understand it, suggested that Speakers should have a pension of £1,000; and in 1895 that was worth a great deal more than £4,000 today.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I should say, interpreting what Keir Hardie said at the time, that this was the only way to get in order.

Mr. Grimond: That is a common problem. It is a trouble which besets us today, and it can be taken up on another occasion.
I should like to raise the whole question of abatement of pensions. If we are to abate this pension, why do we abate it to half? What is the reason for this half abatement? As I now understand, the Speaker has earned his pension as he earned his salary. As I also understand, if one takes the view that no man who has earned a pension is entitled to draw it if he takes some other employment, the position of civil servants is that they have to forgo the whole of their pension if they take further office under the Crown.
I would draw the Government's attention to one example. Naturally, I have not asked the individual in question about it, and if I am wrong I shall, no doubt, be corrected. I understand that the Government asked a very distinguished ex-diplomat to take the chairmanship of the Crofters Commission in Scotland. Nothing could be further from diplomacy, in some of its aspects, at any rate, than the office of head of the Crofters Commission. When that person took the job on at the request of the Government, he had to forgo the whole of his pension. If he had gone into the City of London he could have collected as many directorships as he wanted, but because, at the request of the Government, he chose to serve the public he lost his pension.
I cannot see any reason for that. He earned the pension in an entirely different sphere as a diplomat. He was about to retire, as perhaps Mr. Speaker Morrison was about to retire, and he was asked by the Government to do something more. His good nature and his interest in public matters were appealed to, and for that reason he lost the entire pension which he would otherwise have got.
I believe that the whole House would feel a great deal happier in passing the Bill if the Home Secretary would give a pledge that he will review the whole matter of pensions, retirement pensions


and pensions to public servants and to Members of the House and that, when he has done that, he will come to us and explain what the governing principles are and whether people like ex-Speakers are entitled to take other jobs. If they take other jobs, are they to lose because those jobs are under the Crown, while, if they take private directorships, they will not lose? I trust that the Home Secretary will also give us some assurance that the position of other people who at present are not entitled to pensions at all will be considered by the Government in this Session of Parliament.

4.7 p.m.

Lady Tweedsmuir: I venture to say a few words on this issue because I know something of the problems of governors-general at second-hand and also because I feel most strongly that it is very unfortunate indeed that the appointment of a most distinguished ex-Speaker of this House to a great office should have caused such controversy.
I think that the issue is becoming extremely confused. Whatever any of us may feel about the necessity for pensions, for example, for past Members of this House, at the moment all of us who sit in the House now knew exactly the terms and conditions of service and the risks to our dependants when we decided to stand for Parliament.
As to the other question of pensions, I think that the issue has become clouded owing to our using the term "pension", because what we are discussing now has no actuarial foundation; it is, in effect, an annuity bestowed upon a very distinguished person by Parliament, as is said in the Preamble to the Bill, for past distinguished services.
The Leader of the Opposition raised two points which he said were points of very important principle. First, he asked whether it was not a constitutional principle that when an annuity, such as we are discussing today, is given to a Speaker, it is given to him so that he shall not then feel that he has any need to search for employment for financial reasons, whether it be a private or a public office. In particular, I notice that it has been said, in the Press, at any

rate—it has not yet been repeated, though it may be later—that if an ex-Speaker is offered another post under the Crown the expectation that this might happen to him might injure his impartiality in his great office.
I would say in advance, in case this is aired again during the debate, that that innuendo should be utterly rejected. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because, to begin with, the initiative to become a governor-general certainly does not lie with the person who is ultimately selected. If it did, that should certainly be a reason why that person should not be selected. It is a request from the Government of Australia. It is submitted to Her Majesty, and she may then approve it. The emoluments going with the office are the business and responsibility of the Government of Australia.
The term "governor-general" is in itself not correct, because a governor-general, in modern times, is a viceroy, while the Viceroy of India was both viceroy and governor-general. The representative who goes out to Australia is representing the Queen and is above all political controversy. It is equally absurd to say that for a Speaker to become a governor-general means that he enters what has been described as the "hurly-burly of public life". I repeat that the position of governor-general is above political controversy, and to say that a man enters the hurly-burly of public life implies that he "takes sides" and joins certain groups, not necessarily politically, but that he aligns himself with certain groups.
The timing of the announcement has meant, also, that the salary of governor-general has been related already in the debate to the size of the annuity, and often the two are linked together. On the annuity, I will take the comparable example of an ex-Lord Chancellor, who receives £5,000. When the first Earl of Birkenhead retired from the position of Lord Chancellor he was criticised by the Socialist Party of the day not because he undertook any public office, but because he went into the City and took up a great many directorships. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It seems that the later representatives of those early forerunners, including Keir Hardie, have not changed their views.
The fact remains that Lord Birkenhead was criticised, because it was said that, while taking directorships in the City and accepting the whole of his annuity, he was unable to discharge his judicial duties. The members of the Labour Party of the day maintained that Lord Birkenhead had lost his status as a pensioner because of his position in the City, which prevented him undertaking future judicial duties.
Lord Birkenhead maintained, on the contrary, that his pension related to his past duties and was unconditional and quite apart from his work as a law lord. He quoted various examples of law lords who, in the past, had drawn the whole of their pension without undertaking any judicial duties. He quoted one law lord in particular who had given up the annuity for a time for private reasons and had then claimed the whole pension.
Lord Birkenhead concluded that neither in law nor in morality was a pension conditional upon the future discharge of service. [Interruption.] If the House will listen to me for a moment, having made those claims the first Lord Birkenhead gave up his pension for charitable purposes because he said that the country at the time was going through severe financial stress. Indeed, whilst Attorney-General he had given up much of his salary for the same reason.
However, Lord Birkenhead was careful to do one very important thing. He drew the whole of his pension for a few weeks while, at the same time, receiving his commercial salary in order, to use his own words, to
protect the rights of my successors from an assault generated in about equal quantities from malice and ignorance.
I was impressed to hear the Home Secretary say that it had been the practice when certain public offices are accepted by past Speakers for the annuity to be abated by half. I think he said that that had been the case since 1817. I should have thought that it would have been wiser to safeguard future holders of this great office by passing the whole annuity and leaving it to the judgment of individual holders of the office whether they wish to claim it or not. In passing, I very much welcome the new provision for the Speaker's widow.
It is a new principle which is being put forward by the Leader of the Opposition

today that certain positions—I know that some hon. Members would claim all positions—carrying emoluments, whether in public or private life, should be barred to those holding an annuity. It is not a view shared by all members of the Labour Party. To quote Lord Birkenhead again, a very distinguished predecessor of hon. Gentlemen opposite wrote to him:
My dear Birkenhead,
I am sorry to hear that you are leaving our goodly company of unjust men making other people perfect. May you make money and find peace. If you do, pray let we know, for it is high time that I began the same quest.
That letter was signed by Ramsay MacDonald. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I expected a happy reception, but I did not know that it would be quite as great as that.
As far as the last Speaker is concerned, there are many personal circumstances about which none of us in the House knows nor, indeed, should question, both in Australia and in this country. It is true that a salary of £A10,000 or £E8,000 sounds absolutely huge, but we must take into account the views of those who know the circumstances of these great offices. I expect that most hon. Members have read the letter in The Times of 14th November, written by Sir Alan Lascelles. He said:
… in the past 30 years, few, if any, of those appointed to represent the Sovereign in one or another of the great countries of the Commonwealth oversea have even been able to save, for their personal benefit, any portion of their statutory salaries; on the contrary, most of them have had to put their hands into their own pockets in order to make both ends meet.

Mr. Manuel: Has the hon. Lady read the report in the Press that the Australian Government are making available £124,000 annually as an expense allowance to cover Government House?

Lady Tweedsmuir: Certainly I have read it, because that is the usual practice. That is the decision of the Australian Government and it is very well known. Sir Alan Lascelles says that, in spite of those expense allowances, which are very considerable, for the past thirty years the holders of these offices have often had to make ends meet out of their own pockets.
I was about to quote the sums involved, because the sums which have been mentioned in connection with


Australia are large enough, but in Canada, to take the 1957–58 Vote, it is reported that there was a salary of £16,000 with expenses, counting administration and personal allowances, amounting to £66,000—those are rough figures, because I am translating from dollars into pounds. That is an example of what Commonwealth countries themselves think necessary for their representative to represent the Crown adequately in their country.
If it is true that, even so, the salaries are not enough, it is surely not right then to question whether a man should have or be entitled to the full part of his annuity, because we do not know his personal circumstances—for example, his obligations to dependants or important commitments at home. A man who has a reasonable expectation of an annuity of £4,000 may, to use a coloquialism, count on it just to discharge personal obligations at home. I think that this is important, because otherwise it means that only those who have private, unearned income can possibly accept such posts.
Lastly, I should like to inquire how it is that we ever came to consider the figure of £4,000 as the right annuity. The £5,000 for a Lord Chancellor has been estimated as a way of trying to capitalise the forensic career of those in the upper reaches of the Bar and who might earn up to £20,000 or £30,000 a year and yet hold the office of Lord Chancellor, for example, for only one year. I do not see how we can possibly capitalise in one sum the services that a Speaker of this House can render as the First Commoner. He is the one person on whom from time to time the whole democratic system depends. If the job is well done, I would say that to all of us it is without price. Let us wish him well.

4.22 p.m.

Mr. Charles Pannell: I beg to to move, to leave out "now" and at the end of the Question to add "upon this day six months."
The hon. Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) accused us on this side of the House of being compounded of a mixture of malice and ignorance.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Lady Tweedsmuir rose—

Mr. Pannell: I am well known for giving way, but I have only just started and I do not think that I should have to give way when I have spoken only a few words.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Lady Tweedsmuirrose—

Mr. Pannell: If the hon. Lady will contain herself for a few minutes, I will give way then.

Mr. Speaker: Unless the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) gives way, the hon. Lady should not endeavour to intervene.

Mr. Pannell: I heard what the hon. Lady said and she will be able to read it in HANSARD tomorrow. She probably did not know what she intended to say when she rose. She said that we were compounded of a mixture of malice and ignorance.

Lady Tweedsmuir: On a point of order. Is it in order that I should be misrepresented, Mr. Speaker? I quoted the words of someone else. They were not words which I was using.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order, but it is probably in accordance with practice that the hon. Lady should be allowed to give a personal explanation of what she said. She has now done it under that cloak and perhaps we can get on.

Mr. Pannell: I think that we all know what the hon. Lady said, but it is unprecedented that an hon. Member should be asked to give way in that manner before he has finished his first sentence. As one who has done a great deal for the cause of women in this House, I think that the hon. Lady was trading on chivalry to take that liberty.
In a calmer atmosphere, I want to say only that I move the Amendment with very great reluctance. I would much rather that in the interval between our debates last week and today Mr. Speaker Morrison had saved us from much embarrassment and had put all the rest of his pension in cold storage. I had hoped that I could have voted for this pension in exactly the same way as I voted for the pension of your distinguished father-in-law, Mr. Speaker. I


believe that that is the view of all hon. Members on this side of the House.
Mr. Speaker Morrison himself has said that the House must decide. Therefore, the House will not expect me to be mealy-mouthed about this matter; nor can Mr. Speaker Morrison, after appearing on television, expect to be thin-skinned. [An HON. MEMBER: "The hon. Gentleman cannot help but be mealy-mouthed."] This position was put by a former Conservative Prime Minister and it is the nub of the case which we make this afternoon. I quote:
The Speaker is almost the only man in politics—I include the Prime Minister in the list—who is completely debarred from entering any kind of business or from seeking to promote his own welfare, and it has always seemed, and rightly seemed, that in the Speaker's case, as in my view in the Prime Minister's case, when his term of office is done he should not enter into the ordinary competition of the market-place with other people, but should preserve for the rest of his life the dignity of the great office to which he had been called. That is the reason undoubtedly why those who went before us decided on giving such a pension as was thought in those days sufficient to maintain the Speaker in a position of dignity and in a position where he would be completely relieved of all anxiety as regards the future."[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1928; Vol. 219, c. 546–7.]
That quotation is from the then Prime Minister, Mr. Baldwin, on the occasion of Mr. Speaker Whitley's retirement. That is our case. I do not think that anyone would doubt the authority of Mr. Baldwin, bearing in mind that his fame probably rests particularly on his handling of the great constitutional crisis of the Abdication. I think that that is a rather wiser pronouncement than we had in a leading article in The Times a few days ago, when it was sought to anticipate all the things I did not intend to say.
I do not intend to deal with the pension issue this afternoon. I dealt with that last week, under the shock of the announcement of this governor-generalship and of the personal knowledge of the deep distress of colleagues for whom I have the greatest regard and who are greatly disadvantaged because of the public service which they have given. I leave it at that, but I believe that some hon. Members opposite share my feelings. However, I do not have time to dilate on that issue any further.
I want to refer to a letter which appeared in The Times under the curious title of "Representing the Queen". It was written by Sir Alan Lascelles and, of course, was written from a grace and favour residence. In its last paragraph it refers to the two distinguished field marshals who have served as governor-generals. But field marshals do not retire on pension. They are on the active list all their lives and their case is not analogous to that of the Speaker. It is my case, as the hon. Lady herself said, that the Speaker is in a position different from that of anyone else. It is my case that the Speaker cannot be compared with any other individual, be it the Lord Chancellor or the late Earl of Birkenhead, about whom I could say quite a lot. I will not do so except to say that he was not the sort of person who would qualify for a chair of moral theology.
In so far as Alan Lascelles refers to anything at all, he is presumably referring out of the knowledge that he gained while he was the Royal Secretary. I think that Royal Secretaries, when they retire, might preserve a decent reticence and keep their mouths shut. I do not think that it is for them to write to The Times and to use that sort of knowledge to enter what the hon. Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South referred to as the hurly-burly of politics.
I consider that the financial aspect is secondary to the principle with which I intend to deal, but, as it has been mentioned, I would point out that the ex-Speaker has gone on record as saying,
Far from making a profit out of my £10,000 a year post. I expect to lose money by taking it.
But it is a fact, as we have heard from Canberra, according to a newspaper report, that
There is no need for any Governor-General to put his hand in his own pocket. The Australian Government would think it a reflection upon itself if he did.
The report goes on to enumerate a considerable amount of expenditure which is allowed.
I appreciate that it is no use quoting these figures out of their context. I appreciate the hon. Lady's knowledge on this subject, but I put it to her that the governor-generalship should be offered in such terms that anyone, whatever his


means might be, could receive it without the idea that he would be approaching penury [interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. C. Osborne) will not keep interrupting from that sedentary position.

Mr. Cyril Osborne: The trouble with the hon. Gentleman is that when he does not want to be interrupted by someone who wishes to put a point to him he waves his hand on one side and says "I will not give way."

Mr. Pannell: I think that it is within the knowledge of the House that over the last ten years I have given way fairly frequently.
I have dealt with the financial aspect of this matter, which, I say, rests on two points: first, that the Commonwealth of Australia ought to offer a sum sufficient to attract anyone, whatever his means, as long as he has the qualities to fit him for the job; and, secondly, that a Speaker's pension should not be a subsidy for a colonial governor-generalship.

Mr. Brian Harrison: Mr. Brian Harrison (Maldon) rose—

Mr. Pannell: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, but I must finish my sentence and I should like to finish this part of my speech. I know that the hon. Gentleman is an Australian, but he should not be in such a great hurry to rush in to defend presumably something that the hon. Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South thinks is insufficient for the job.

Mr. Harrison: I was interested to know whether the hon. Gentleman was referring to Australia as a Colony.

Mr. Pannell: I stand rebuked. I ask the House to accept my withdrawal. Of course, I should have used the word "Commonwealth".
We are entitled to look at the origins of these pensions which go back far beyond the date which the Leader of the House gave. The origins of these pensions go back to 1761, when the great Mr. Speaker Onslow vacated the Chair after thirty-three years. There is no doubt that the foundation of this House and the high reputation of Speakers rest upon what Mr. Speaker Onslow did in his day. He was the great Speaker who

severed the connection of the Chair from the Crown. Among his perquisites were the Treasurership of the Navy, which he gave up. It is said in biographies that he lived on the proceeds of Private Bills, which were, presumably, considered to be rather small emoluments at the time. Such was his massive integrity, I read, that at the end of his time, when he was made a Freeman of the City of London, he refused the golden casket worth 100 guineas as being inconsistent with the office which he had just left. Very few of us, possibly with the exception of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton. South-West (Mr. Powell), are as good as that nowadays.
It is a fact that there has been only one departure from the idea that the Speaker should not seek public office, and that was the offer by Ramsay MacDonald to Mr. Speaker Whitley in 1930. We think that is an unfortunate precedent, and the hon. Lady will appreciate that Ramsay MacDonald is not now regarded as one of the honoured names on this side of the House. He represents one of the great tragedies.
We put forward a principle here that the Speaker, during his term of office, must not look either to the Right or to the Left. He must not look to Downing Street. He must not look to the Palace. He must have no idea of anticipation of any favours to come. Otherwise, we consider, it would be disastrous to this House. He must not bow the knee to anyone. We say that this business of the governor-generalship creates a most unfortunate precedent. It is within the knowledge of the House that the ex-Speaker, by implication, received a rather severe handling in the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure on the interpretation of Standing Order No. 9.
We would not want to think that as a Speaker approached the end of his days he should be wondering whether a certain preferment might or might not be offered to him because of his Rulings. We would not like to conceive that one ex-Speaker having dealt with the proposal that he should be a governor-general within the Commonwealth, another might consider the idea of accepting the chairmanship of a nationalised board. He might even be involved in a breach of Privilege, with my


right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), if that sort of thing arose. The Speaker must be completely single-minded when approaching the end of his time in this House.
It is within my knowledge and within the memory of hon. Members that when Sir Ben Smith moved from the Ministry of Food to the Midlands Coal Board the cry of "Jobs for the boys" went up from hon. Members opposite. Yet he was a distinguished public man, with a great record of public service—a far more distinguished man in his own right than many people who have been appointed to nationalised boards, particularly under this Government. Yet because he served on the Left and not on the Right—and he was not alone in this—he had this aspersion cast upon him.

Mr. Leslie Hale: And he got no pension.

Mr. Pannell: As my hon. Friend says, he got no pension.
I want to refer to the advice that is given to the Monarch in this connection. Presumably Mr. Menzies advised the Queen and the Queen expressed her pleasure. But somewhere along the pipeline the Government should have known of this business and should have known that it was likely to be a cause of controversy.

Mr. R. A. Butler: indicated dissent.

Mr. Pannell: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I can only tell him that if that is so there is something wrong with the pipeline and that it should be attended to.

Mr. Butler: It is not the pipeline that is in trouble. All this derives from a proper interpretation of the Statute of Westminster.

Mr. George Chetwynd: Cannot we have a leak in the pipeline?

Mr. Pannell: The right hon. Gentleman himself knows full well that he has been embarrassed over this business. The House has been embarrassed. I think that patronage sometimes does go astray. For instance, we had the example of where the presidency of a professional pressure group was accepted for the Duke of Edinburgh the other day—a most disastrous thing. I think that the

Palace is sometimes rather badly advised in these matters. I was referring in that particular instance to the British Medical Association.
I come now to the subject of the rewards of public life. I have not referred to pensions, but one of the things, I think, to which the Leader of the House and the Government should give attention is the position of the Speaker, Prime Ministers and Ministers of the Crown, vis-à-vis their functionaries, the permanent civil servants. It seems rather odd that the idea has grown up that the Clerk, whom we treat with great respect, should receive a larger stipend than Mr. Speaker himself. We think that it is really odd and incongruous that the permanent civil servants should be paid at a higher level, with all their 100-per-cent. security, than Ministers of the Crown.
This state of affairs has grown up over the years. If one considers Mr. Speaker's salary and the salary of the Clerk over the years, one finds that the Clerk's goes up all the time and Mr. Speaker's stands still. This does no good to the prestige of public servants and it does no good to the prestige of the House. In my view—I am not standing on one side or the other—it is a form of public cowardice if we do not face these questions.
I am sorry to have got into a turmoil at the beginning of my speech, and I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will not think that my arguments are illusory. I do not think that the reasoning I have advanced about the position of the Speaker and the importance of his being completely free and uncommitted to anybody is illusory. At the end of his time, the greatest credit and dignity of the Speaker will be that he has been the Speaker of the greatest debating assembly in the world—a rather superior place to the other place.
I do not think that my appeal is in any way illusory. If it is, so are the three knocks at the door. If it is, the office of Black Rod is nothing but a medieval pantomime. If this appeal to the nature of the Speaker's office is illusory, so is the bow which we make, on crossing the Bar, to the altar that stood in another place 200 years ago These are the traditions of the House. They are the warp and woof of our Parliamentary life, of our traditions and of


all that this place stands for. We all honour this House. But the servant and master of this assembly is the Speaker. We must lift his person and office completely above all considerations which would make such a debate as we have had this afternoon impossible. I hope that we shall do so in the future.
On this occasion, we think it unfortunate that the acquisitive sense of one Speaker has led him astray from the course of history.

Mr. Osborne: Cheap.

Mr. Pannell: It is not cheap, because I profoundly feel it. It is open to hon. Members in this place to express their deep opinions even though some other hon. Members may object. I, too, paid a price in coming here, and I do not speak on the sufferance of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne). This whole episode is an unfortunate one. It has been unfortunate in the way it has developed. We had the news on the very day that Parliament proceeded to consider the Bill last week. There was the appearance on television. The matter has been bandied about in the Press. There have been many things of that kind. We warn the whole House and the Government about the future, and, for the reasons I have given, I hope that some of my hon. Friends will, as a protest, follow me into the Lobby tonight.

4.44 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: I beg to second the Amendment.
I shall not detain the House long in supporting the Motion. It is not a very pleasant task because we are criticising someone who, a short time ago, had the respect of all of us, and, indeed, that respect is still felt by us today.
Thirteen years ago, in my humble capacity, I was returned as a Member of Parliament. I was on demobilisation leave at the time, and I remember coming to the House rather bewildered and wondering what had happened to me. I watched the procedure and the traditions of the House unfold. I say now, particularly to some of the new Members here, that my immediate reaction was to think that very much of what we did, what we said, and the way we did it—I am speaking of our

procedure and tradition now—was unnecessary and ought not to be continued. I think that six years in the Army had probably made me feel a little hard about that sort of thing.
The longer I am here, the more do I come to respect and understand and admire those things, and I recognise now why it is that older Members of Parliament, especially some of our Privy Councillors, always have a deep affection for this place.
We are not discussing now whether Members of Parliament ought to have a pension. That is not the occasion for this debate. The question before us is not whether £4,000 a year for Mr. Speaker is right, or enough, or too much. That is not the point at all. Mr. Speaker, in his person, is the First Commoner in the land. He is in charge of the proceedings of the greatest Parliament in the world. When we take schoolchildren or other people over this building, we tell them with pride of the great efforts made by Mr. Speaker Lenthall when he fought the Crown, saying that he was the servant of this House.
What has happened over the years? I shall make no personal remarks against Mr. Speaker Morrison, except to say that what has really happened now is that he has brought the office of Speaker and all it has meant down to what I regard as a rather sordid level. I look at the matter in this way. When we elect our Speaker, as we recently did, we go through the motions of a traditional procedure, arranging for two Members of Parliament to drag the chosen Member from his seat, appealing to him to take the office.
I respectfully suggest to hon. Members that, if it became known that, at the end of the day, there would be for the Speaker not only a title and a very adequate pension but also the possibility of a job as a result of his having held the office, we should not have to ask two hon. Members to drag the chosen man from his seat, but they would be doing the four-minute mile and we should be crushed in the rush. There would be continuous competition among hon. Members to take the job for what it is worth.
This is the sort of thing which is putting Britain in trouble today. The General Election is over. Nowadays, we


are destroying those things which most of us have always valued. Everything is judged by how much money one can make out of it. Here, in fact, lies the difference between the philosophy of this party and the philosophy of the party opposite. In many respects we have different values.
I speak as one who came here despising some of our traditions, believing them to be outworn and outdated, but today I wish to defend and fight for them. I support the Amendment because I believe that, otherwise, we shall do great harm to the Constitution and all it stands for in this great House of ours, in which I am proud to be a very humble Member. I shall vote not because I despise or dislike Mr. Speaker Morrison, but because I think that what he has done is wrong and will do great harm to this country.

4.48 p.m.

Mr. Brian Harrison: It is an interesting fact that, whereas many people from this country have been "transported" to Australia in the past, the illustrious predecessor of our present Speaker is being "transported", not this lime to Botany Bay, but to take up a very distinguished position in Australia; and a very different view is being taken of the job to which he is going and what he will do there.
Speaking as an Australian, I think Australia is very fortunate in having so distinguished a person in that office. Some of those who deny the right of the ex-Speaker to go out to Australia as Governor-General are, in fact, denying Australians the opportunity of having at their service a representative of the Crown of extremely high calibre.
There is one particular aspect which I find rather interesting and on which I find myself partly in agreement with the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), and that is the question of patronage. We have the unique set-up within the Commonwealth by which the Queen of Australia is also the Queen of the United Kingdom. This is an interesting situation about which, no doubt, constitutional authorities far more able than myself could argue for a considerable time. I do not want to go into it too deeply at this moment, however, except to point it out and to say that it is something which should be considered on future occasions.
Much reference has been made to the salary of the Speaker and the pension which he is now to enjoy. I think we must get the matter into this form of perspective. It is a payment for services rendered to this House, and it is part of the established traditions of this House that it should provide an adequate pension for its Speaker. Realising that it is payment for services rendered to this House, I think that the salary which the former Speaker will receive as Governor-General is entirely irrelevant. It should not enter into the matter. In fact, I think that the part of the Bill which deals with the abatement of the pension is unjustified, although I accept the explanation of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that it is on precedent. I do not think that that part should be in the Bill. However, it is there and it is on precedent.
I do not think that it is our job to consider whether the remuneration for the Governor-General of Australia is adequate. That is the Australians' job, and I feel certain they will make sure that it is adequate for the job to be fully carried out. I always think that the Dominions get the Crown "on the cheap", because they do not pay anything for the upkeep of the Royalty and the dignity of the Crown in this country. Consequently, they can afford to pay, and do pay, adequate remuneration, but not sufficient for anyone to save up anything to take home.
I do not wish to go into greater detail at the moment, except to repeat how much I welcome the fact that so distinguished a servant of this House and so distinguished an upholder of the traditions of this House should find himself as the Queen's representative in Australia so that Australia may have the benefit of his presence, kindliness and great ability. However, I think that when he takes a job like this it is wrong that the sum which he is paid as a retirement pension for services rendered should be abated, and I regret that the provision for its abatement is included in the Bill.

4.53 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: I understand how the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison) as an Australian feels about this matter, but I hope that he and other hon. Members will believe that those of us who oppose


the Bill do so because we think that there is a grave constitutional objection to what is proposed in this instance.
This House has struggled over centuries to assert the principle that the Speaker is the servant of this House and is not under the least shadow of influence from the Executive. That struggle was a gradual one. Success was not achieved at first. In early days, the House had to struggle against direct intimidation of the Speaker by the Sovereign or sometimes the imposition upon this House by the Sovereign of a Speaker whom the House itself would not have chosen. Naturally, with the passage of years, that altered, but this House found later that when that danger was removed there was the further danger that the Speaker might be subjected, not to intimidation, but to private influence to use the many opportunities of his office to favour the Executive.
It is for that reason that we preserve certain forms and ceremonies, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), when we elect a Speaker—in order to establish beyond doubt that there has not been, privately and before the Speaker has been chosen, any arrangement with the Executive whereby someone agreeable to the Executive might be foisted on the House as Speaker. We and our predecessors have been to all this trouble over centuries to see that the Speaker is the servant of this House and is not in the least degree dependent upon the Executive.
Since those years, something further has happened. The importance of the office, always great, has been vastly increased. Recent legislation has added greatly to the number of occasions on which a Speaker, if he were unworthy of his high office, could use his powers in a biased manner to the injury of the Constitution. Not only his Rulings and choice of speakers in this House, but his position as Chairman of Boundary Commissions, as decider of other constitutional matters referred to him from time to time, his power of certifying what is and what is not a Money Bill have added to the importance of the office and to the importance of there being not the slightest possibility of his

being in any way dependent upon the Executive.
One of the arrangements we make in order to put it beyond doubt that the Speaker should not depend in the least degree on the good will of the Government of the day is the arrangement for his pension. His pension cannot be considered solely as a reward for services rendered. It is one of the precautions which Parliament takes to establish that not only shall the Speaker feel himself while in office able with safety to be completely independent of the good will of the Government of the day, but to ensure also that it will be impossible for anyone to suggest that he might be subject to the influence of the Government of the day.
If when he retires from office he will have no income to look forward to, he must be a heroic man indeed, particularly if he is married and has dependants, if the question, "If I am careful not to offend the Government too much, will something be done for me in my retirement?" never enters his mind. It is in order to prevent that question ever entering into a Speaker's mind or to prevent anyone suggesting that it could enter into his mind that we make this provision.
Surely it follows that when a pension of this kind is drawn the condition of the man who draws it should be one of retirement. In introducing the Bill, the Home Secretary used words which I cannot from memory quote accurately, but the sense of them was that Australia might find it particularly gratifying to have an ex-Speaker of this House as Governor-General. That may well be, but what does it mean? Will there be other Commonwealth nations or other institutions, public or private, who may feel that it is desirable and dignified for them to have ex-Speakers of this House in their service? If that is to be the general rule, Speaker after Speaker will never be able to avoid from time to time the idea coming into his mind, "At the end of my service I may or may not be appointed to a certain high office with substantial emoluments." That is not a situation in which anyone in the position of Speaker should be placed. That is the main constitutional reason for objecting to what has happened in this case.
I know that in this instance the advisers of the Crown would be Her Majesty's Ministers in Australia, but now that it has happened in this instance, now that it has been suggested, from the words used by the Home Secretary, that it is a rather agreeable idea to have ex-Speakers given posts of this kind, who might it be next time?
Furthermore, if it is for Her Majesty's Ministers in Australia to advise Her Majesty as to who would be suitable to be Governor-General of that realm, we have also to consider that the appointment of an ex-Speaker of the United Kingdom Parliament is a matter of concern to the Parliament of the United Kingdom and to Her Majesty's subjects in the United Kingdom and is a matter, therefore, on which advice might properly have been given by Her Majesty's United Kingdom advisers. If it was not done, it is a matter for question whether that was not an omission in our constitutional arrangements. Surely, what happens to an ex-Speaker and the possible result of any appointment given to him on the way in which the office of Speaker is regarded and the way in which Parliament is regarded is a matter of concern to us in the United Kingdom. That is why many of us cannot feel happy about what has happened on this occasion.
Very often in Parliament we have to say to ourselves, "Well, I would have liked this or that to happen, but as circumstances are it cannot happen. How within the forms of the House can I best and most honestly express what is in my own mind?" For myself, I consider it most unfortunate that an ex-Speaker of this House should have accepted this appointment—[An HON. MEMBER: "Any appointment."]—or, indeed, any appointment. I concede that in perhaps one case in a thousand one might be able to produce the most exceptional reasons why an ex-Speaker should accept such an appointment. If, however, it is to be as exceptional as that, the exception ought at the very least to be marked by the exceptional step of the former Speaker not accepting, and this House not granting, the usual pension. Therefore, those of us—and we are many—who feel that this is unfortunate constitutionally have only one way in which we can express that deeply-held view,

and that is by supporting the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend, That the Bill be read a Second time this day six months.

5.4 p.m.

Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe: Listening to all the speeches in this debate, I began to wonder whether we were not in danger of becoming confused by trying to debate at one and the some time the general question of whether a Member's pension rights from this House were adequate and the question of the pension for Mr. Speaker Morrison. I do not for one moment deny that there is much to be said for improving the general rules by which old Members of the House of Commons, when they finally retire, can get pensions, but this is not the time to raise that.

Mr. C. Pannell: I did not raise that.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: There will be plenty of other opportunities to do so. This is a quite separate issue.
I would have thought that Mr. Speaker Morrison is just as much entitled to his pension traditionally as former Speaker in return for his very distinguished services rendered to this House as the retiring Governor-General of Australia, Sir William Slim, is entitled to his Field Marshal's emoluments for the distinguished services which he has rendered during his career in the Armed Forces.

Mr. Pannell: That has nothing to do with it.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: In both cases—in one the emolument and in the other the pension—they are a reward for distinguished services rendered in their several capacities.

Mr. Pannell: The hon. Member has got it entirely wrong. The Speaker is unique. Even if a Speaker were in office for only six months he would be given the same pension. It is given in recognition of the fact that he has been Speaker. When people speak about services rendered, they do not know the nomenclature of this legislation. A field marshal starts at whatever rank he first has and finishes up as field marshal at the end of a lifetime's work, but the Speaker here, as in the case of Abercromby, may get his pension after only


four years. A respected Minister, however, can be here for perhaps forty years and get nothing. It is because he is our contact with the Crown that the Speaker is so completely different. If the hon. Member does not understand that, he does not understand what the debate is about.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: I understand the point perfectly well. The same applies to a field marshal. If a field marshal were to be incapacitated by serious illness within a fortnight of being promoted to field marshal he would continue to enjoy the full emoluments of a field marshal for the rest of his life. That, however, was not the point I was wanting to make.
I do not think it is a good argument against the House granting Mr. Speaker Morrison the pension proposed in the Bill to say that a pension should not be given to an ex-Speaker if he enters into the hurly-burly of political life. I am in entire agreement with the proposition that an ex-Speaker of this House should not enter into the hurly-burly of political life, but nobody can conceivably argue that the post of Governor-General of Australia involves entering into the hurly-burly of political life.

Mr. Pannell: Oh, yes.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: The very qualities which make a first-class Speaker in the House of Commons—and Mr. Speaker Morrison had them in full measure—are exactly the same qualities that would make an admirable Governor-General of one of our great self-governing Dominions.
During his speech, the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), who, I am sorry to say, is not now in his place, used the word "sordid". That is what prompted me to rise to my feet. What I regard as sordid is the tendency in certain quarters to judge issues of this sort upon the sole yardstick of what an individual is alleged to be getting out of it. I regard that as very sordid.
Happily, in our public life there are still many men, of whom Mr. Speaker Morrison is one of the most distinguished, who judge high offices and appointments not by what they can get out of them but by what they can contribute to them. We should be proud

that an ex-Speaker of this House should have felt able to accept an invitation to serve a Commonwealth country in the high post of Governor-General.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: When this debate is read in Australia, I believe there will be considerable reinforcement of the opinion that Mr. Menzies would have saved embarrassment to this House, the Leader of the House and everybody else concerned had he decided to recommend an Australian for the post of Governor-General. I hope that that lesson will not be lost and that on future occasions Canada, Australia and the other Dominions will appoint their own citizens and save us and future Speakers the embarrassment of considering this kind of situation.
We are always tempted to go back to precedent. The Home Secretary referred to the precedent of 1832, but it was in that year that previous precedents were abandoned. For many years before 1832 the precedent affecting Speakers was that the Speaker received £4,000 pension and that his son who followed him received either £4,000 or £3,000. Of course, it began to be realised that something ought to be done, because these precedents have to be examined in the light of new historical conditions. Nobody would have suggested in these days, not even the noble Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir), that an ex-Speaker's son should receive a pension of £3,000 a year. Therefore, we have to re-examine the precedents.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that I shall not embarrass you, but there is one other office similar to this which has not been mentioned in this debate, and it is very relevant. When the Deputy-Speaker and Chairman of Ways and Means retired, nobody asked what would happen to him. As the last Deputy-Speaker and Chairman of Ways and Means was Sir Charles MacAndrew, who was also a Member for Ayrshire, I want to suggest that Sir Charles MacAndrew did a very great deal of sheer drudgery work in this Chamber for very many years. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] He has passed away from the scene without anybody suggesting that there should be either a pension for Sir Charles MacAndrew or for his wife, or a governor-generalship.


Sir Charles MacAndrew, according to his ideas of dignity, is far more content to disappear on the Prestwick Golf Links than take an office under the Crown.
It is this attitude to the people in the high-up positions, in considering them first and then thinking later of the lower strata, as one might call them, or not thinking of them at all, that I do not like. I suggest that when we are examining this matter we should remember that frequently Mr. Speaker is supported by people who may not appear so much in the limelight, people who have not very much spectacular work to do but who do a great deal of this humdrum drudgery which can often make this a very dreary place.
In 1832, there were precedents for the present opposition to this Bill, long before Keir Hardie. I would have thought that the Leader of the Liberal Party would recall that in 1832 the then Leader of the Radical Party raised objections to the granting of a similar pension. He was Mr. Joseph Hume, who was very radical, and contributed a great deal of criticism of the institutions of this House. I am very glad to say that I discovered a bust of him in the Reference Room of the Library, and I hope that after what I have said his bust is not going to be thrown out.
Mr. Joseph Hume is described as a rigid economist; no doubt he was, because he came from Aberdeen. He was accustomed to applying the logic of Aberdeen to situations of this kind, and if Joseph Hume, a former Member for Aberdeen, is anywhere in the shades listening to this debate, he will wonder what has arrived in Aberdeen when he comes to read the speech of the noble Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South, It is rather curious. Leaving my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) out of it, I think the position of Aberdeen has been degenerating throughout the centuries.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Is not my hon. Friend looking at only half of Aberdeen?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): I hope the hon. Gentleman will not pursue that subject too far, because it is beyond the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Hughes: I do not wish to fall out with the better half of Aberdeen. The hon. Members can decide that between themselves.
There was Mr. Joseph Hume, who is described as a rigid economist, and when this debate took place in 1832 he expressed the view that—
all retiring Speakers should proudly decline all pensions as a thing mean and unworthy, and as that appeared to be a state of perfection to which retiring Speakers were never likely to attain, he would move the abolition of the pension when the next vacancy in the Chair occurred.
What happened afterwards, I do not know, but Members can go into the Library and find out for themselves.
There was opposition at the time, and I believe that whenever any of these ancient traditional offices come up for consideration we should at least try to look at them rationally That is what I tried to do in this case. However much we may be imbued with the traditions of this place, there are always people outside who, whenever one mentions the word "pensions", begin to listen and then to say "Well, what about me?" I am quite sure that the ten-shilling widows will be taking an interest in the precedents cited for this Bill. There are Army pensions, Civil Service pensions and municipal workers' pensions. Whenever we raise the question of pensions, we immediately excite considerable interest among many people outside this House. We have to give the impression to the people that we are not merely concerned with tradition but with the day-to-day lives of the people whom we represent.
I believe that in this matter our credulity has been rather imposed upon. We have been expected to believe too much. The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) seemed to be indignant when somebody referred to the acquisitive sense of the previous Speaker.

Mr. Osborne: I was.

Mr. Hughes: I do not think there is anything insulting, when referring to a Scotsman, in saying that he has an acquisitive sense.

Mr. Ede: Hear, hear.

Mr. Hughes: I can quite understand that of ex-Speaker Morrison, as a Scotsman, as a business man and as a lawyer


—he was a Queen's Counsel, a director of an insurance company and of a brewery, as well as a Minister, before he came to be Speaker of this House—and it takes a lot to convince me that he did not weigh this up very carefully. I cannot be convinced that he agreed to accept this office in Australia because it would give him an opportunity of dipping into his pocket and subsidising the Commonwealth of Australia. I am a simple, credulous person myself, but it takes a good deal to convince me that Mr. Speaker Morrison did not think that after all there was, quite fairly, another side to this picture. One side has been presented by the noble Lady, but if hon. Members want the other side they should read the account in today's Daily Telegraph.
The Home Secretary talked about the expenses, but there are the allowances. When we hear that from 1959 to 1960 allowances totalling £40,580 would be paid—that is the Government's figure—that puts another side to it. Then, we are told that the future Governor-General does not have to maintain very great expenditure as regards his household because the Australian Government are providing for the maintenance of Federal Government Houses at Canberra and Sydney and that when the Governor-General travels he stays with his staff at the expense of the State Governments. We are told that three or four kinds of secretaries are supplied and that there is one concession, which I am sure must have entered into the mind of any hon. Member, especially one from north of the Border that Government liquor in those houses is free of Excise Duty. Moreover, we are told that after five years the Australian Government pay £4,000 of salary for leave.
So, while not being of an ungenerous nature, I think hon. Members opposite should not prey upon the credulity of people outside. Without in any way saying anything disparaging of Mr. Speaker Morrison, we believe that he has not gone to Australia for the purpose of putting his hand into his pocket. That is all.
Then there is the whole question of superannuation. I remember that when we were discussing superannuation in

this House the other day the Government and hon. Gentlemen opposite said that we did not want to bother about including in the superannuation scheme those having higher salaries because they could look after themselves. I am wondering what the Prudential Assurance Company will think if this habit spreads, and when we are going to give extra pensions to the wives of people with good salaries, because that would cut out a very lucrative side of private insurance. All these things have to be taken into consideration.
Personally, I have no prejudice against Mr. Speaker Morrison. He was a very great actor in this House. He had a tremendous presence and a good sense of humour in addition to his law, and he was an excellent actor. He could have played a Shakespearean part as well as any Member of this House. We are, however, entitled on these matters to give voice to our criticism.
The attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite has changed during the years. I remember when they opposed old-age pensions, and I remember the time when hon. Gentlemen opposite and gentlemen in another place objected to an old-age pension of five "bob" a week at 70 on the ground that it would discourage thrift.
All I wish to say in conclusion is that by voicing these sentiments we are voicing the opinion of millions of people outside this House, which, after all, is what this House is for.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I feel sure the House will be willing now to come to a decision on this matter of the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell). It does not fall to me to add a great many further comments to those which I have already made, but I think it would be courteous just to reply shortly to the debate.
The first observation I should like to make is that Mr. Speaker Morrison was referred to by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) as having a very pretty sense of humour. I am sure he will appreciate the degree of humour which there has been in this debate without underestimating the degree of sincerity with which many points


have been put. The only service I can render both to the House and to one of our distinguished Speakers, Mr. Speaker Morrison, is to say that I hope our debate will be taken in the right proportion of balance outside this House and inside this House as well, and overseas.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition made a powerful contribution, raising certain principles on which he rightly said no ruling, as he described it, had ever been given. That is the case. I could not, in summing up for the few minutes I do speak, give any rulings, nor would they be likely to be accepted by the House as obiter dicta from myself, but I should like to pay this tribute to the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He said that there were certain understandings to be held or reached by the House about the high dignity and office of our Speaker, and that any inhibition placed, by the general concensus of opinion in the House, on the future activities of the Speaker should be linked up with a pension of adequate amount to make it quite certain that there should not be another situation such as that of Lord Dunrossil. That, in so far as one debate can affect what are our own traditions, is a major contribution to thought, and I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for making it.
The hon. Member who moved the Amendment referred to the great days of Mr. Speaker Onslow who even gave up a golden cup in the City of London—

Mr. C. Pannell: Casket.

Mr. Butler: Yes. Mr. Speaker Onslow severed his connection with the Crown and Mr. Speaker Onslow has left behind him a high sense of and reputation for integrity. This is the spirit in which I think we should conclude this debate.
It is, I am quite certain—and here I refer to the hon. Member's own words—no acquisitive sense which has prompted Mr. Speaker Morrison, now Lord Dunrossil, to accept this abated pension and to accept the post of Governor-General of Australia. I am certain there has been no such sense in the mind of the ex-Speaker. I am quite certain, looking at this from the worldly point of view, that the ex-Speaker will not return from Australia a richer man, although he may return a wiser and better man for having served the Commonwealth.

I am certain there was no money consideration in his decision.
I should like to make the House aware of one of the main reasons why the Government consider it important to go forward with this Bill. As I said in my opening speech, we thought it would be wrong to create a precedent by not passing a Bill about the pension of the Speaker on his retirement, from the point of view of his successors, and in the interest of Mr. Speaker Morrison, just because by a coincidence, which, as I explained, came from outside, Mr. Speaker Morrison has had this singularly distinguished honour which has been offered, namely the Governor-Generalship of Australia. We thought a great deal about this.
The hon. Member was kind enough to say that this was a source of anxiety to me. Of course it is. No one wants, in having a debate dealing with one of the highest personalities and one of the highest offices in this country and in another, to do violence to such a personality or to curdle our relations with one of the great sister nations of the Commonwealth. I do not believe they will take this badly. We are a House of Commons who are entitled to express our own views—and even though I was not able to grant a free vote on the Betting and Gaming Bill I do not believe that prevented the utmost liberty of speech either then or today, and I hope that that will continue to be a feature of our Parliament and that those outside will take our interventions in the spirit in which they are intended.
There were one or two other matters raised. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), the Leader of the Liberal Party, asked that there should be a pledge given on this occasion to reform the whole range of pensions, so far as I could understand, public and also in relation to the interests of Members of this House.
I think that it would be wrong in principle to use this debate to discuss Members' pensions or to give any pledge, but in sending a small billet doux to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) the other day on the subject of betting, upon which I sit at his feet as he is such an expert, I did say that I thought it was


rather harsh of him to say the other day that I had not paid proper attention to the report presented by the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. T. W. Jones) on the subject of Members' pensions. Of course, full attention has been paid to that. We are well aware that this is a very delicate and important topic. Just because I cannot give the pledge asked for by the hon. Member he must not think that in a debate like this, or when other people's pensions are being considered, the mind of the Government is totally hard or that we do not realise the problems in which, as at least two speakers from this side of the House in the course of this debate have said, some of the older Members of the House of Commons are placed.
That is the only contribution I can make in winding up the debate, but I should like just to refer to the thoughtful and constructive speech of the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart). He referred to the problem of a possible clash between the Speaker and the Executive. I would like to remind him that I said in my opening remarks that there could not be any conflict of loyalties in this brush between the House of Commons and the United Kingdom Executive because the invitation which has partly brought about this discussion came from outside Her Majesty's Government—from Her Majesty's Australian Ministers. I do not regard the Executive of the United Kingdom as being at cross-purposes with the House on this occasion.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question? He told us much earlier in the debate that he and the Government generally had no knowledge of the offer or projected offer. Can he now tell us when, in fact, the offer was made?

Mr. Butler: I understand from Mr. Speaker Morrison, who simply sent me a short note of his views which I gave in my opening remarks, that he first heard of the matter on 27th October last.
I was dealing with the point of principle raised by the hon. Member for Fulham. If there were to be a clash between the Executive or if by passing

a Bill like this we were appearing to fetter the Speaker to the Executive of the day, and if we were making any arrangements which would make it more difficult for us in future to choose an independent Speaker, I would not recommend the Bill to the House. It is because I think that we are guiltless on this point and because I think that some people overrate the published figures of the remuneration which the Speaker is likely to get and underestimate the expenses which he will have to incur, and because of the precedent and because of the successors of Mr. Speaker, that I recommend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Ede: I was hoping that the right hon. Gentleman would deal with what my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) called the pipeline, that is, the way in which Dominion Ministers approach the Crown. When I held the office which the right hon. Gentleman now adorns I was approached by someone, who ought to have known better, to give advice as to what should happen with regard to certain social events when it was believed that the late King George VI would be in Australia. The question was no sooner put to me than I said, "That is no concern of mine. If His Majesty wants to get advice with regard to what he does in Australia, his Australian Ministers and no one else are the persons to be consulted". I do not believe that the Statute of Westminster can be worked on any other basis.
After I had given that opinion I sought the opinion of the then Law Officers of the Crown, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) and, I think, the distinguished lawyer who is now Lord Shawcross. To my surprise they confirmed the opinion that I had given.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make it quite clear that in these matters each Dominion approaches the Crown direct. I am sure that it would be a grave embarrassment to Her Majesty's Ministers in Australia, in Ghana, and elsewhere if it were thought that the approach to the Crown was through Her Majesty's minions—[Laughter.]—Ministers in the United Kingdom. I am sorry that in an effort to get to the end of a sentence quickly


I should have expressed inadvertently a view that I hold with regard to the present Government.

Mr. Butler: If I may say so, it is a rare distinction for me to find myself in complete agreement with the right hon. Gentleman, Lord Shawcross and the Law Officers. Again, if I may say so, the right hon. Gentleman's version of the operation of the Statute of Westminster is correct That is why I made clear in my opening remarks that Her Majesty's Ministers in the United King-

dom did not even know of this approach and only heard of it at the appropriate time. We were not consulted, and it would be very wrong to think that we were. On Australian matters, Her Majesty is advised by her Ministers in Australia, as she is by the appropriate Ministers on matters pertaining to other parts of the Commonwealth.

Question put, That "now" stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 300, Noes 155.

Division No. 4.]
AYES
[5.35 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Critchley, Julian
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Allason, James
Crowder, F. P.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Alport, C. J. M.
Cunningham, Knox
Hocking, Philip N.


Arbuthnot, John
Curran, Charles
Holland, Philip


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Currle, G. B. H.
Holland-Martin, Christopher


Atkins, Humphrey
Dance, James
Hollingworth, John


Balniel, Lord
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Holt, Arthur


Barber, Anthony
Deedes, W. F.
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John


Barlow, Sir John
de Ferranti, Basil
Hopkins, Alan


Barter, John
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hornby, R. P.


Batsford, Brian
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Drayson, G. B.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Duncan, Sir James
Hughes-Young, Michael


Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.)
Duthie, Sir William
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Iremonger, T. L.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Eden, John
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Berkeley, Humphry
Elliott, R. W.
Jackson, John


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
James, David


Bidgood, John c.
Errington, Sir Eric
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Biggs-Davison, John
Erroll, F. J.
Jennings, J. C.


Bingham, R. M.
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Bishop, F. P.
Farr, John
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Black, Sir Cyril
Fell, Anthony
Johnson Smith, G. (Holb.&amp;S.P'ncr's, S)


Bossom, Clive
Finlay, Graeme
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Fisher, Nigel
Joseph, Sir Keith


Box, Donald
Forrest, George
Kaberry, Donald


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Foster, John
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Brewis, John
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Freeth, Denzil
Kirk, Peter


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Gammans, Lady
Kitson, Timothy


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Gardner, Edward
Lagden, Godfrey


Bryan, Paul
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Lambton, Viscount


Bullard, Denys
Glyn, Col. Richard H. (Dorset, N.)
Langford-Holt, J,


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Godber, J. B.
Leather, E. H. C


Burden, F. A.
Goodhart, Philip
Leavey, J. A.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Goodhew, Victor
Leburn, Gilmour


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Gower, Raymond
Legge-Bourke, Maj. H.


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Green, Alan
Lilley, F. J. P.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Gary, Sir Robert
Grimond, J.
Litchfield Capt, John


Channon, H. P. G.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Longbottom, Charles


Chataway, Christopher
Gurden, Harold
Longden, Gilbert


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Loveys, Walter H.


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hare, Rt. Hon. John
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Harris, Reader (Heston)



Cleaver, Leonard
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Cole, Norman
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
MacArthur, Ian


Collard, Richard
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
McLaren, Martin


Cooke, Robert
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia


Cooper, A. E.
Harvie, Anderson, Miss
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hay, John
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs.)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
McLean, Neil (Inverness)


Cordle, John
Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Corfield, F. V.
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
McMaster, Stanley


Costain, A. P.
Hendry, Lt.-Col. A. Forbes
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Coulson, J. M.
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Maddan, Martin


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Hiley, Joseph
Maginnis, John E.


Craddock Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Maitland, Cdr. J. W.




Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Profumo, John
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Marlowe, Anthony
Ramsden, James
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Marshall, Douglas
Rawlinson, Peter
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Marten, Neil
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Thorpe, Jeremy


Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Rees, Hugh
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Renton, David
Turner, Colin


Mawby, Ray
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Ridsdale, Julian
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Robson Brown, Sir William
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Mills, Stratton
Roots, William
Vane, W. M. F.


Montgomery, Fergus
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Moore, Sir Thomas
Russell, Ronald
Vickers, Miss Joan


Morgan, William
Scott-Hopkins, James
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Seymour, Leslie
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.


Nabarro, Gerald
Sharples, Richard
Wakefield, Sir Waved (St. M'lebone)


Neave, Airey
Shepherd, William
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek


Nicholls, Harmar
Simon, Sir Jocelyn
Wall, Patrick


Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Skeet, T. H. H.
Ward, Rt. Hon. George (Worcester)


Noble, Michael
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Nugent, Richard
Smithers, Peter
Watts, James


Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Webster, David


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Speir, Rupert
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Stanley, Hon. Richard
Whitelaw, William


Osborne, Cyril (Louth)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Page, Graham
Stodart, J. A.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Partridge, E.
Storey, S.
Wise, Alfred


Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Studholme, Sir Henry
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Percival, Ian
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Peyton, John
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)
Woodhouse, C. M.


Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Talbot, John E.
Woodnutt, Mark


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Tapsell, Peter
Woollam, John


Pilkington, Capt. Richard
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Worsley, Marcus


Pitman, I. J.
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Pott, Percivall
Temple, John M.



Powell, J. Enoch
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Mr. Brooman-White and


Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)

Mr. Gibson-Waft.




NOES


Ainsley, William
Fernyhough, E.
Mapp, Charles


Albu, Austen
Fitch, Alan
Marsh, Richard


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Foot, Dingle
Mellish, R. J.


Awbery, Stan
Forman, J. C.
Mendelson, J. J.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Millan, Bruce


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Mitchison, G. R.


Beaney, Alan
Ginsburg, David
Monslow, Walter


Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Gourlay, Harry
Moody, A. S.


Benn, Hn. A. Wedgwood (Brist'l, S. E.)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Morris, John


Blackburn, F.
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Neal, Harold


Blyton, William
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Bowles, Frank
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Oliver, C. H.


Boyden, James
Hannan, William
Oram, A. E.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Owen, Will


Brockway, A. Fenner
Healey, Denis
Padley, W. E.


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hilton, A. V.
Paton, John


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Holman, Percy
Pavitt, Laurence


Callaghan, James
Howell, Charles A,
Peart, Frederick


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Hoy, James H.
Pentland, Norman


Chetwynd, George
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Cliffe, Michael
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Popplewell, Ernest


Collick, Percy
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hunter, A. E.
Proctor, W. T.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Randall, Harry


Darling, George
Jeger, George
Rankin, John


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Redhead, E. C.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Reid, William


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Ross, William


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kelley, Richard
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Deer, George
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Delargy, Hugh
King, Dr. Horace
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Dempsey, James
Lawson, George
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Dodds, Norman
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Skeffington, Arthur


Donnelly, Desmond
Loughlin, Charles
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Driberg, Tom
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Small, William


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
McCann, John
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
McInnes, James
Snow, Julian


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
McLeavy, Frank
Sorensen, R. W.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Spriggs, Leslie


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Evans, Albert
Manuel, A. C.
Storehouse, John




Stones, William
Tomney, Frank
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Strachey, Rt. Hon. John
Wainwright, Edwin
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Warbey, William
Woof, Robert


Swain, Thomas
Watkins, Tudor
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Swingler, Stephen
Wheeldon, W. E.
Zilliacus, K.


Sylvester, George
White, Mrs. Eirene



Symonds, J. B.
Whitlock, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Wilkins, W. A.
Mr. Mason and Mr. Reynolds


Thornton, Ernest
Williams, D. J (Neath)

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

5.47 p.m.

The Minister of Education (Sir David Eccles): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The purpose of this modest Bill is to amend two provisions in the Atomic Energy Authority Act, 1954, a Measure which it fell to me to introduce to the House for my noble Friend Lord Salisbury who was then Lord President of the Council.
The House will recall that five years ago we were setting up a new kind of organisation and that Section 1 of the 1954 Act laid down the structure of the Authority itself. Here we were following the wise advice of Lord Waverley, whose judgment in matters of administration was of the greatest value to all who sought it. Under Section 1 of the original Act, the Authority was to consist of a chairman and not more than ten and no fewer than seven members; five of these members were to have special qualifications which are laid down in the Act. Provision was also made for some of the members to be full-time working directors.
There were two thoughts behind these arrangements. The first was that, having regard to the scattered and complex nature of this great business, experience alone would show what was the right number of members of the Authority. The second was that though some members should be full-time, part-time members were certainly also required. In practice, the Authority has found that it has worked well for the heads of the distinct branches of its work to be full-time members and that, at the same

time, roughly the same number of part-time members should be added. With that combination of full-time and part-time members we believe we have created the best kind of governing body for this unique organisation.
Since 1954 the work of the Authority has increased very much. For example, the number of people employed has increased from 17,000 to 37,000. One consequence of the expansion has been that the elbow room provided by the provision that there must be at least seven but not more than ten members was soon fully used. Today, besides Lord Plowden, there are four full-time members and six part-time members. Clause 1 of the Bill seeks to recognise the growing complexity of the Authority's work and to restore a measure of flexibility for the future in the composition of the governing body. In making changes in the size of the Authority we wish to preserve the same balance between full-time and part-time members.
There are two immediate requirements to be considered. In the first place, the Authority has decided to split the industrial group into two. The industrial group received a very good report from the Select Committee on Estimates for its efficiency and successful functioning, but now it is considered wise to split it into a Development and Engineering Group, and a Production Group. That seems sensible because the activities on both sides have grown very much.
The Development and Engineering Group is in the charge of Sir William Cook, who is already a full-time member of the Authority. Sir Leonard Owen has been designated as head of the Production Group, and I am sure the House would think it right that he, too, should be a full-time member of the Authority. Then, as the House knows, Sir John Cockcroft has been appointed Master of Churchill College, Cambridge. His place as member for research has been taken by Sir William Penney, and Sir William, in his turn, has been succeeded at Aldermaston by Sir Claude Pelley.
No one here would be happy if Sir John Cockcroft's unrivalled experience were lost to the Authority as a result of these changes and we all want him to stay on as a part-time member, which he is willing to do. As the membership is already ten, the present statutory limit, and Sir Ivan Stedeford's place as a part-time member is required for somebody else, we are short of two places today, one for Sir Leonard Owen and one for Sir John Cockcroft. I know it will be agreed that it is better to look to the future and increase the maximum membership to fifteen, which is three more than the twelve we want today. That is the proposal in Clause 1.
As, no doubt, there will be another occasion, I will not trouble the House this afternoon with a description of the expanding work of the Authority. There is no other single institution in this country which, in so short a space of time as five years, has done more to establish the reputation of Great Britain in the scientific age. I would only add that the range of the Authority's work is astonishing. It extends from the administration of a large research organisation, for both fundamental and applied science, through development work and engineering design on a scale and of a complexity that is not equalled elsewhere in this country, to the operation of many factories incorporating diverse plant of a most delicate kind and with the most extraordinary instrumentation. Then there are all its relations with industry which every day grow greater, as they should, and there are also its overseas activities which are always on the increase.
All this calls for the highest qualities of organising skill and it is fair to say that they have not been wanting. Every hon. Member here who has experience of atomic work, and there are many, will agree that it is a remarkable tribute to the administrative talents of our country that so vast and so varied an enterprise could have grown up as well-knit as this one has done. Here I should like to pay a tribute to Lord Plowden who, as the House knows, is retiring and who has given such remarkable service to the Authority, and also to Sir John Cockcroft, Sir Christopher Hinton and Sir William Penney, who may be considered

to have been his three chief aides. We are remarkably fortunate that at the moment of the discovery of nuclear fission we should have had such eminent people with both the scientific and administrative talents to carry on the work. Therefore, I think we can confidently endorse the decision of my noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal that the expansion of the membership of the Authority proposed in the Bill is fully justified.
I turn for a moment to Clause 2. This is an enabling provision which will allow the Authority to admit employees of the National Institute for Research in Nuclear Science into its superannuation schemes. The National Institute was established to help the universities to carry out work in nuclear physics, but the fact is that the equipment and facilities required for this vital research are too expensive for any one university to provide. At the same time, it is important that the facilities should be available outside a Government institution and under the control of the universities themselves. That need has been met by the creation of the National Institute. Its organisation is growing fast and much of its staff is certain to be recruited from the Authority.
It is right, therefore, that the Institute's staff should have superannuation schemes of the same kind as those of the Authority. The simplest arrangement is to give the Authority power, which it does not possess under the 1954 Act, to admit the staff of the Institute to one of its schemes, if they wish to be admitted. It is expected that there will be frequent interchange of staff between the Authority and the Institute. That is a good working arrangement, and it is clear that the interchange will be made easier if a man who is at one time employed by the Authority and at another time employed by the Institute is always inside the same superannuation scheme. I understand that these proposals are supported by the staff associations concerned.
I feel that the permissive power to widen the Authority's superannuation schemes will commend itself to hon. Members, and I hope they will agree with the arguments I have put before them in support of the two Clauses of this small but useful Bill, and will give it an uncontested Second Reading.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: The Minister of Education has made a most pleasant and lucid explanation of the Bill. I should like to associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the tribute which he paid to Lord Plowden, Sir John Cockcroft and Sir William Penney, and indeed to the staff of the Atomic Energy Authority as a whole.
There are, however, two aspects of the situation which I find a little puzzling. The first is that the Bill has been introduced by the Minister of Education. On two occasions the Prime Minister has defined the Minister's status in matters of atomic energy, but although he has defined it, he has not explained it to our satisfaction. Although the Minister of Education is a most talented man, it is difficult at first sight to see the link between the planning of secondary education and the organisation of the Industrial Group of the Atomic Energy Authority. In view of the importance of educational matters, I think that the public may well be a little surprised to find that the Minister's energies are being distracted from the tasks which are the real function of his high office.
The second feature of the situation which I find a little puzzling is that we have been allocated so little time for a matter of this kind. The last debate of any substance that we had on the Atomic Energy Authority was in 1954. Since then the Fleck Report has been published—in December, 1957—and the Report of the Select Committee of the House—in July of this year—together with four or possibly five Annual Reports by the Atomic Energy Authority.
During those five years two major decisions have been taken by the Authority. The first was the decision to remove, and later to restore, the executive responsibility of the technical members of the Authority, and the second was the decision to divide the Industrial Group. We therefore have some slight misgivings, and I am sorry that there is not time for us to develop them more fully.
The Minister, as always, has been very frank with us about the reasons which have led the Government to make this proposal. The Atomic Energy Authority has always had the maximum number of members. I think that this has been

necessary and that the success of the Atomic Energy Authority, which is one of our most remarkable and successful nationalised industries, has confirmed the wise choice of members which was made. The number fixed in the Act, however, left very little room for manœuvre, and I think that it is right to give the Government more room for manœuvre in the appointment of additional members of the Authority. When Sir John Cockcroft is appointed Master of Churchill College it is right that the Atomic Energy Authority should be in a position to retain his services as a part-time member.
Here I should like to emphasise the importance which I attach to part-time membership of the Authority, because it enables men who are distinguished in industry and science to help the great work which is being done. Equally, I believe that if the Atomic Energy Authority decides to split the Industrial Group—and that decision is one of the reasons for the Bill—it should be perfectly free to do so.
Having said that, I should like to revert to the misgivings which I still entertain. Anyone coming to the problem completely fresh, as I do, cannot fail to detect a certain unpredictability in the running of the Atomic Energy Authority, while at the same time realising the need for flexibility.
I should like to give the House two examples of what I have in mind. The first example, with which the Minister is very familiar, relates to the partition of the Industrial Group. In October, 1957, the Prime Minister appointed a Committee to report on the organisation of the Atomic Energy Authority. The chairman of the Committee was Sir Alexander Fleck, chairman of Imperial Chemical Industries, and the other members were Sir William Penney, the member of the Atomic Energy Authority for weapon research and development, and Mr. C. F. Kearton, one of the part-time members of the Authority. It would be difficult to find a team better qualified to consider the organisation of so large a project or so well able to predict the possible course and scale of its development.
It is, therefore, well to remind the Minister of paragraph 74 of the Report


which sir Alexander Heck and his colleagues presented to the Prime Minister. It reads:
We consider that because of the essential unity of the Industrial Group its functions should not be divided between two groups.
Nevertheless, the Atomic Energy Authority announced on 20th March this year that as from 1st July the Industrial Group would be divided into two. The reason given was that its responsibilities had increased greatly in the past five years, but it is difficult to believe that they had increased so substantially in the intervening fifteen months since Sir Alexander Fleck presented his Report as to invalidate the views of so experienced a judge as Sir Alexander.
It is difficult to reach a conclusion on the Authority's wisdom in this respect because the chairman's evidence to the Select Committee of the House was not reported. It is, however, fair to recall that in paragraph 48 the Select Committee welcomed the decision that the Authority had taken, stating that they did so because
They believe that its advantages have now become greater than the disadvantages which led the Fleck Committee on Organisation to oppose such a change.
The second example which I want to give is that of the Authority's change of mind as to whether the technical members should or should not have executive responsibility. The decision to remove that executive responsibility was announced in paragraph 23 of the Fourth Report of the Authority and the decision to restore it was announced in paragraph 18 of the Fifth Report of the Authority. That change, too, was welcomed by the Select Committee, as reported in paragraph 18, but I am bound to record my own feeling that these quick-fire changes must cause some disquiet about the higher planning of the Authority's work.
I should like now to turn very briefly to Clause 2 relating to the National Institute for Research in Nuclear Science. As the right hon. Gentleman reminded us, it is a most distinguished body, appointed by Royal Charter. Here I think there is a difficulty. If as I understand it to be the situation, the Institute is to set up a laboratory cheek by jowl with the Atomic Energy Authority's research establishment at Harwell, with considerable interflow of staff between

the two, there are obviously possibilities of friction arising if the conditions of employment of the two staffs are in any way different.
If I am correctly informed, the Institute's expanding staff will be recruited to a large extent from the existing staff of the Atomic Energy Authority. It is therefore right that the conditions of employment in the two organisations should be made as nearly the same and as attractive as possible. It is most important that we should realise that in 1958 the Industrial Group of the Atomic Energy Authority had vacancies for 269 university graduates. The Authority offered jobs to 422 graduates, and only 160 of them accepted the appointments which they were offered. The others preferred either to remain in the universities or to accept the higher salaries and better conditions which they could obtain in other industries.
I hope that the improvement which the right hon. Gentleman is proposing in the pension conditions of members of the Institute staff and the general drawing together of the conditions in the two organisations will help to make service in the Atomic Energy Authority and the Institute more attractive. It is because I hope this, and because I hope that it will lead to still greater triumphs for a project of which all of us are proud, that, on behalf of the Opposition, I welcome the Bill.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. Austen Albu: I should like to join the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood) in the compliments paid to Lord Plowden and the very distinguished team of scientists and engineers who built up this outstanding achievement in the field of public activity. It is the complete answer to those who say that one cannot get both initiative and good organisation in institutions run by public authorities.
The new board that is coming into being, partly by the process of retirement and change and partly as a result of the Bill, is, of course, facing some very serious problems indeed. They are problems relating to priorities in research and development and to the expenditure of what are very large sums of public money. These are problems that face the Government not only in this field


but in all the fields in which public money is expended on research and development, and in relation to the scale on which it is spent at all. In passing, I should like to support the strong plea made by Professor Hoyle in the current issue of Discovery for more Government expenditure on fundamental research, which would very much benefit this country in future.
As my hon. Friend has said, we have far too few opportunities to discuss at length this very large undertaking, and the very large sums we spend on it. As more than 90 per cent. of the money that this organisation receives comes directly from Government sources, and therefore, it cannot in any way be considered a commercial undertaking, I should be happy if the Government would agree that more Parliamentary Questions on its policy and day-to-day administration could be answered in this House. It should not be treated as though it were a commercial undertaking, like a nationalised corporation.
There were last year, and I believe that there are still, very considerable anxieties among members of the staff of the Authority, particularly in some divisions. This applies particularly to the Isotopes Division, where the growth of Treasury control would appear to be beginning to stifle the essential fundamental research work of the Division. It appears as though there has been too early an attempt to make that division a commercial and paying proposition. It is, of course, earning substantial sums, but, in my opinion, it is too early yet to make it a commercial undertaking. As I say, there is great anxiety that the Treasury and the accountants are frustrating the efforts of the scientists.
The right hon. Gentleman probably knows—and if he does not his noble Friend undoubtedly does—that during the last year or two a very large number of heads of departments in the Authority have left it—voluntarily—because of frustration; not because they wanted to leave, but because they felt that they could not get on with their jobs. I am not now referring, of course, to members of the Authority itself. I shall not mention any names or divisions—the Minister may well know them—but it is a fact that a number left, and the morale of the Authority—at any

rate, last year; I do not know whether it has improved now—was not too good.
That may have something to do with the difficulty referred to by the Select Committee in the recruitment of senior staff. It is very difficult indeed to recruit senior staff, although we have to admit that the number of those, particularly in engineering, who are capable of undertaking these very responsible jobs is few, and their tasks are sometimes rather peculiar. A man who may be in charge of a great atomic plant may have great technical expertise and organising ability but may need to exercise his authority and assume responsibility on only very few occasions. When he has to do so, he has to exercise the very highest authority and the greatest degree of judgment of all. It is almost like the case of the man watching a dial on an automatic machine who may have nothing to do until the machine goes wrong. Because of the nature of the work, that is a very difficult problem.
There is disappointment among some members of the staff—perhaps among members of the board, too, but I do not know—that no scientist or engineer is thought to be fitted, in this great scientific undertaking, to be chairman. Let me say at once that I understand that Sir Roger Makins has acquired an extraordinary knowledge of nuclear science, no doubt gained from his work in New York on the agreement with the United States.
The main difficulty in the administration of the Authority is that at present it lacks a sense of direction. This is the result of the disillusionment occasioned by the slowing down of the progress in the commerical development of reactors, both for ourselves and for export. We are all well aware of the reasons for that. The panic over the shortage of sources of energy has disappeared throughout the world—at any rate throughout Europe. Therefore, the urgent necessity for alternative sources has gone. There is also the fact that other countries—the United States and Russia in particular—can afford to spend so much more than we can on the development of so many more types of reactor.
The new board will have to grow again into a really strong team. There are a lot of new members, and they will


need to become knitted together in the organisation, as did the old team which founded the Authority, and which, to some extent, has broken up. There is now need for very firm decisions on the scope of reactor development that this country can afford to undertake. We cannot afford to undertake everything. In this, as in other fields of very expensive research and development, we must carve out a niche.
Attention has been drawn to this by the Select Committee which, on the whole, is in favour—as, I believe, are many engineers—of our concentrating on reactors that will in future be able to burn the plutonium that is being produced in our ordinary electricity generating plants of the type now being built. Therefore, we all welcome the commissioning of the fast-burning reactor at Dounreay, as this shows us the way we should go.
We could also concentrate on a small type of reactor suitable both as a marine reactor and as a small land-based power station. At present, there are not any plants in any country available for both of these purposes, especially for the latter purpose. When nuclear energy first began to be talked of and plants to be designed people said that the desert would blossom soon, the underdeveloped areas would benefit quickly, and so on. As in so many other similar cases, this was rather optimistic nonsense.
The truth is that we can put down a large plant, but if the amount of current that it produces is very great and if the number of consumers is small or spread over large areas, the cost of the current to the consumer is far too great. What would undoubtedly be of great help and benefit in the under-developed countries, and have a considerable market, would be small stations that might be suitable also for marine work. I hope that the Authority is seriously considering that suggestion.
When it comes to the much larger schemes, where we find it so difficult to compete with countries like the United States and the Soviet Union with their vast resources, we must, I am sure, go much further in co-operating with other countries both in Europe, as we are beginning to do to a small extent, and

in the Commonwealth, as we are beginning to do with Canada. Only by combining resources on a larger scale than this country can itself afford will we be able to keep up with the countries that have very much larger resources of their own. I hope that I will not be misunderstood. This has nothing to do with the skill or knowledge of our scientists and engineers. It is merely that an enormous amount of work has to be done, not only fundamental work but development and engineering design work.
I feel that a new drive concentrated on some of these aspects of the work, concentrated on a limited field where people can quite clearly see the target, and the removal of the Treasury "dead hand", if it exists, on some of the fundamental projects, particularly isotopes, will give new encouragement to the staff of the Authority. If this is done, I think all hon. Members on this side of the House will wish the new board every success.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. Harold Davies: This is neither the time nor the occasion on which to develop a broad debate on the Atomic Energy Authority Bill, or on the relative issues of the economics of atomic energy and the part it will play in the future of the country. We are all grateful for the work that has been done by all the men connected with atomic energy in the past. We are grateful for the contribution that they have made towards making Britain one of the foremost atomic energy countries in the world.
There are, however, two facts that I want to deal with. I do not propose to trespass for long on the time of the House because I know that I would be ruled out of order if I mentioned all the things that I should like to discuss. I hope that the Government will give us another opportunity to discuss this subject in greater detail.
It is time that we tried to understand something about the economics of atomic energy. The small reactor is a vital consideration. I believe that we are losing some of our initiative in obtaining contracts abroad. The uncommitted parts of the world where people are thinking of small reactors rather than large ones might provide scope for expansion.
I welcome the Bill and I will not bore the House by quoting at length from the Select Committee's Report because it is available for all hon. Members who wish to see it. There are, however, two sentences which I should like to quote. Paragraph 162 says:
The relative positions of the Authority and of industry have been changing rapidly of late.
Paragraph 163 says:
Your Committee believe that the Industrial Group should respond to this changed position by bringing industry into closer partnership at every stage of development.
That is the point that I wish to make. I am sure that that is a step in the right direction. I may be treading on someone's toes, but, without entering into party politics, we must remember the magnificent work that was done by public enterprise and the initiative that was taken.
The Government, in conjunction with public enterprise, must be prepared to break down a little of the conspiracy of silence about so-called classified material. We hear more and more talk of classified material in relation to atomic energy, but this talk is becoming less and less important.
We welcome the broadening of the Atomic Energy Authority, but at some time or other we would like the Government to place enough material before the House to enable us to have a full and constructive day's debate to see what Britain's position is in relation to the rest of the world. Our position in the world is of vital importance.
I would only be talking round the point if I tried to make a longer speech on the Bill. We on this side of the House welcome this Measure and hope that it augurs well for the future of British atomic energy production.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Roy Mason: I rise with some trepidation on the first occasion on which I address the House from the distinguished position of the Dispatch Box.
Although the Bill is small in size it is very large in content. In spite of its being a two-Clause Bill there is sufficient material in it, indeed within the content of the first Clause alone, to have warranted a full day's debate.
I have checked the statistics of the number of debates we have had on this subject, and the result has caused me some perturbation. I find that since July, 1954, nearly five and a half years ago, we have not had one full day's debate on atomic energy alone. The number of times that this subject has been discussed in five and a half years, when at least four columns of the Official Report have been filled, is thirteen. There have been eight Adjournment debates and on five other occasions this subject has been mentioned during questions and answers following statements. There have also been a few references to it in the Queen's Speech or in debates on fuel and power. When there is a debate on fuel and power the emphasis is on coal. Sometimes the emphasis is on gas and electricity, but at no time have we had a full day's debate on atomic energy.
This is something which the Government ought to try to remedy. It is indicative that today we are squeezing this very important Bill, which is investing authority for reorganisation in the Authority and making a 50 per cent. increase in the policy-making team at the top of the Authority, between a retirement pension Motion and an Opposition Motion on another subject. Such a position is not fair to the Atomic Energy Authority or to the House.
The Bill envisages some reorganisation within the Atomic Energy Authority, and from my limited knowledge of developments this is rightly being done. The original programme with its ensuing development under the small board raises doubts in my mind whether it has proved completely right. I could offer a few criticisms but I will only mention in passing that there is not the time to do so and perhaps this is not a suitable occasion on which to level such criticisms and to go into detail.
Many of us wonder whether we have been right in plunging into the development of the Calder Hall type of reactor. Because of the decision to develop gas-cooled graphite-moderated reactors we are now finding great difficulty in getting contracts abroad. As we all know, we over-stretched ourselves a little when we went in for experiments to try to solve the problem of harnessing H-bomb power with the fusion reactor called


Z.E.T.A. We might find ourselves querying once again the colossal jump forward in attempting these experiments with the fast-breeder reactor at Dounreay.
As many hon. Members who have taken an interest in this subject know, because of the policy of having a gas-cooled graphite-moderated type of reactor, we are now hoarding an excessive amount of uranium. This has recently caused a great deal of trouble in the uranium market, particularly in Canada. However, for my part, I recognise the many difficulties that face the Authority from outside.
We had to predominate in the military field of nuclear development. We have done well, and criticism at this stage would be out of order. However, the change of emphasis from military or defence work to peaceful developments is absolutely necessary. It seems to me a question of whether the balance of importance should switch more emphatically and decisively from nuclear equipment for military purposes to nuclear developments in the civilian field. Defence work is still going on apace, but by comparison it should be receding more rapidly, and the civilian uses and developments of atomic energy should be more intense. This may mean a shift of scientific manpower from the Weapons Research and Development Group to the industrial group, which will be necessary if further expansion is visualised in the peaceful field.
This leads me to the second problem, namely, the shortage of experienced scientists, technicians and engineers so urgently required for further advances in nuclear energy. We are losing many highly-qualified scientists abroad. They are taking up research scholarships in America and Canada, and once these men have settled their scholarships over there the attractions, both of industry and the Atomic Energy Commission, are so great that not many come back. That may be a slight exaggeration, but it is important at this stage to realise that there is a drain of scientific manpower from this country to Canada and America.
I have raised this problem in the House on previous occasions, especially on 4th November last year, when I

asked the Minister of Labour what the Government were doing about it. In reply, he said:
The Civil Service Commission has reported that recruitment of British scientists in the United States and Canada for research fellowships in this country has had encouraging results. The Atomic Energy Authority has been associated with this effort. This is satisfactory and I hope that others who have employment to offer will follow this initiative."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th November, 1958: Vol. 594. c. 38.]
The Minister at that time was acting upon the Report of Her Majesty's Civil Service Commission which says, in paragraph 39, that they were getting encouraging results. The Commission went to Ottawa and Washington and interviewed seventy people, and it was hopeful of getting a number of them back. That was last year's Report. This year, paragraph 41 indicates that developments have not been as successful as was first anticipated. The Report says:
The results of the interviews held in Ottawa and Washington in April, 1958, to select applicants for Research Fellowships and for Scientific Officer posts were less satisfactory than originally appeared likely. Although several suitable candidates were found, in the event only two joined the Service—one as a Research Fellow and the other as a Senior Scientific Officer. From a wider national point of view the exercise may have been more profitable since it appears to have stimulated some well-qualified men to return to this country where they have taken up appointments in the universities or in industry.
It is noticeable that none is taking up an appointment with the Atomic Energy Authority. Therefore, there must be a greater attempt by the enlarged board to plug this gap.
I would not dream of suggesting that we should ban people from taking research scholarships. By all means let them go. The experience will be of great benefit to them and to the industry they serve. But we should seriously attempt to find out why many of our good scientists, technicians and engineers take these scholarships and fail to return.
A further matter which the newly organised board must consider is its alliance with industry. I would ask the House to examine to what extent this marriage can take place, with a view to harnessing the whole of our scientific manpower, geared to a programme to keep us in the forefront of the world's


nuclear power developments. There is a temporary stoppage in our advance, perhaps because the authority is handicapped owing to the shortage of experienced personnel. All the published reports are riddled with the same comment. The Report of the Select Committee, the Fleck Committee's Report on reorganisation, and every Annual Report of the Authority keep stressing the fact that we are not getting sufficient experienced personnel to carry on with the many developments we have in hand. Consequently, there is a temporary stoppage in the advance of the Authority at the moment. This is shown by what happened with regard to the Windscale problem. Many scientific personnel were moved from the Dounreay experiment in order to solve the Windscale problem. As a result, the work at Dounreay has been retarded by about fifteen months, solely because the Authority lacked sufficient experienced and qualified personnel.
Let us contrast this with the consortium of five groups of companies who were attracted by this new industry and all that would obviously flow from it. They stretched their tentacles and captured all the available scientific and technical staff. They envisaged that there would be a large nuclear power programme, and that we should be building nineteen atomic power stations, although we are now to build only twelve. They visualised markets abroad, especially in Europe, but the Government failed them, because we now have only a technical collaboration agreement with Euratom instead of having become a member.
Because of hesitancy by the Government we still have not come to a decision ahout the building of a nuclear-powered ship. All these factors, apart from the fact that the Authority is frustrated because of the shortage of personnel, lead the private sector of the atomic energy industry—the consortium—to feel that it has had its efforts stifled.
This has meant that the private industry has a surplus of scientific and technical manpower, and also of research capacity. What we now have to decide is some way of using the consortium and its experienced staff to a greater extent. All that will be a problem for the Authority. It will have to find some way of marrying the industry

with the Atomic Energy Authority, so that we can use the whole of our scientific and technical manpower to the full, for the benefit of the whole nation.
Another problem facing the Authority arises from its vain attempts to attract key men with high qualifications and plenty of experience to serve in the managerial positions. Only recently, as the right hon. Gentleman said, we have lost Sir Christopher Hinton, who went to the Electricity Board; Sir William Strath, who went to the Ministry of Supply; Sir John Cockcroft, who is now working part-time instead of full-time, and who has gone to Churchill College—and now we are to lose Lord Plowden. The Authority is having the greatest difficulty in attracting men of this standing, such is the competition with industry.
Another factor which requires the attention of the Authority is the problem of maintaining international relations. This proposed increase in the strength of the Authority may ease the burden of the present executives, because demands made upon senior staff to keep up international collaboration are occupying an appreciable portion of their time. Many people are not aware of the number of committees and organisations which they have to visit. There is the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations Scientific Committee, C.E.R.N., or European Research in Nuclear Energy, Euratom, and the International Labour Organisation. They all want representation from the British nuclear industry.
The enlargement of the Authority may help to cure that problem, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is still necessary to have so many internal committees within the Authority itself, particularly in the Industrial Group. One senior executive is still expected to attend 106 meetings a year. A functionary executive of this nature is not likely to be attracted to the Authority to do a worth-while job when one-third of his time will be spent sitting fastened in committee.
During the course of the debate my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) mentioned the concern that exists about the Radio-Isotope Division of the Authority. I am very concerned


about it. It has recently been streamlined, and it is now producing and marketing radio-isotopes on a grand scale. Sales from Harwell and Amersham rose to £800,000 in 1958–59 compared with £650,000 in 1957–58; 60 per cent. of our production is exported and already we feed fifty-five countries. It is a product which will always be in demand. It has a predetermined life—many have only weeks or months of life. Because of the help which they can provide in medicine, agricultural research and industry there will be a recurring demand for them.
This Division of the Authority is making a profit and its future is promising. But I am concerned because I recollect what happened to S. G. Brown, an organisation which, having been taken over by the State during a time of need and built up into a profitable commercial concern, was then handed back to private industry. I should like the Minister to assure us that this Division will not be turned over to a commercial concern and taken out of the control of the Authority in consequence of the nature of the Division, the progress it is making and its proven profitability.
This Bill will go through its various stages with indecent haste, as have other atomic energy Measures. That procedure is typical of what has happened throughout the past five and a half years of the administration of this and the previous Government. For the sake of the Atomic Energy Authority, more Parliamentary time should be given to discussing atomic energy matters and that time should be provided by the Government. The Fifth Annual Report of the Authority has been presented recently. This is an opportunity for the Government to provide time for a more detailed analysis of the nuclear programme. That is what hon. Members who have taken an interest in the matter consider should be the future trend.

6.42 p.m.

Sir D. Eccles: If the House will permit me, I should like briefly to reply to one or two of the interesting speeches which have been made. The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood) asked why I should be the spokesman. The only reason I can think of is that I was the spokesman before. When I

was Minister of Works I represented the then Lord President of the Council and I suppose that I have remembered a little. I will do my best from time to time, on behalf of my noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal, to give to the House the information desired by hon. Members.
I note that almost every hon. Member who spoke was of opinion that we should have more frequent debates on the Atomic Energy Authority. There are well-known ways in which the House could ensure that time is provided for such debates, and I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will hear of the comments which have been made. The hon. Member for Rossendale drew attention to the frequent changes, as he called them, in the organisation of the Authority. I suppose the reason is that the Authority is still very young, and has shown a flexibility such as I think can hardly be considered a bad thing. When expansion is as rapid as it has been, not only in size but in the nature of the work, I do not doubt that a good board does change its mind from time to time. From the information I have, opinion now supports the splitting of the Industrial Group into two.
The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) made a very interesting speech which I shall certainly draw to the attention of my noble Friend. He felt that the Isotope Division was starved of funds, and the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) mentioned the same point. There is, however, no intention of stopping work on the manufacture of isotopes, or their sale, which has been a great success. The hon. Gentleman is correct in thinking that the market for this product is likely to expand. But I suppose it is sometimes necessary to say to people doing research which does not seem likely to bring in any return, "You had better stop that and try something else." It may be that from time to time it is necessary to adopt that course.
I was sorry to hear that the hon. Gentleman felt the organisation lacked a sense of direction. From the little which I have so far been able to learn about its current work it seems that a great number of experiments are going on. No doubt the board has to


establish priorities, as do all boards when the business they are conducting is so extensive. The need for a small reactor to be used in ships, or to be land-based, is appreciated. Our cooperation with the United States is also all to the good. Only this week the Authority announced a new agreement for sharing information on the advanced gas-cooled reactor. That must be right considering the fact, as the hon. Gentleman said, that we could never have the resources to cover the whole of such a vast field.
The hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) and the hon. Member for Barnsley mentioned the relations between the Authority and industry. I can tell them that the recommendations of the Select Committee on Estimates on that point have been accepted by the Authority, and that relations are close on such subjects as reactor technology. The manufacture of fuel elements is another subject raised by the Committee which is receiving attention.
The hon. Member for Barnsley felt that the Authority had gone a bit fast in some directions and that, in his opinion, some of the work ought to be transferred from Aldermaston to the civil side. If I am correctly informed, the Aldermaston work on plasma, which is of great importance, is continuing, and precisely for the reasons which the hon. Member himself mentioned. He will also know of the new machine pronounced "Ice", but spelt "I.C.S.E.", which is really a successor to Z.E.T.A. and which is now to be built.
If the supply of scientists is deficient, I suppose that is one reason why the Minister of Education might have something to do with this sphere of science, but I can hardly think that the situation is quite so bad as hon. Members have suggested. I have here the figures for recruitment by the Atomic Energy Authority. A comparison of the count made on 31st March, 1958, with the latest count at the end of last September reveals that the senior professional grades, including scientists, engineers, medical staff, etc., have increased from 377 to 511. The figure for scientists and engineers, including draughtsmen, was 6,900 in April, 1958, and today is 8,600. It does not look as though there is much

pause in the expansion. Of course, I am not saying that the Authority can always get exactly the right man for the right job. There is vast competition with other employers of scientists, and obviously we must be concerned if the Authority cannot recruit the staff it requires.

Mr. David Price: Has my right hon. Friend the numbers of people in the higher income groups, because the Select Committee drew attention to the difficulty the Authority is having at the £2,000 a year or £3,000 a year level both on the managerial and the research side? The Authority is perturbed about it. I wonder if my right hon. Friend could tell us at some time how the Authority is getting on in that field, because this is the key to the whole problem.

Sir D. Eccles: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention and I shall ask my noble Friend to provide me with the information so that I can give it to my hon. Friend. The senior administrative staff, which presumably comprises the highest grade of administrators, has, however, gone up from 56 to 93, which is nearly double. That does not look so bad. I hope and believe that the effect of having one or two more members on the board and of the great interest which the House shows in the Atomic Energy Authority will be factors leading to the successful and further expansion of the authority. I hope that the House will now give the Bill a Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Bryan.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to increase the maximum number of members of the United Kingdom Atomic


Energy Authority, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under section four of the Atomic Energy Authority Act, 1954, which is attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session increasing the maximum number of members of the Authority and providing for the application of any pension scheme maintained by the Authority to officers and other persons employed by the National Institute for Research in Nuclear Science.—[Sir D. Eccles.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — GARRATT v. EASTMOND

6.54 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I beg to move,
That this House regrets the failure of the Secretary of State for the Home Department adequately to explain the payment of £300 out of public money in the case of Garratt v. Eastmond in which the alleged misconduct of a Metropolitan Police officer was involved.
This is a Motion of censure against the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. I must tell him that, of course, we shall listen with very great care to his speech tonight and that our decision on what action to take at the end of the debate will depend on what he says. But we shall also have to take into account—I must tell him this—the handling of the case by him so far. In that connection T wish to quote a sentence from The Times leading article this morning on the general handling of this matter by the Home Secretary. The words of The Times are:
… the Home Secretary has shown an inexplicable and uncharacteristic reluctance to accept, or, indeed, even to face the principle at stake.
Before I develop that—as I shall—I wish to raise one general issue which seems to me very much in point in connection with this case.
The general issue is that if identical facts and allegations had arisen in connection with a provincial police force, we would not be able to raise the matter in the House of Commons tonight or at any time. We are all grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger) for drawing the attention of the House to this matter, but if the facts or the allegations had occurred in his constituency he would not have been able

to do so. It is a very great anomaly that we are here able at Question Time to discuss and raise the affairs of the greatest police force in the land, but cannot raise the affairs or question in any way the conduct of any other police force in the country.
I admit that there are difficulties about changing this. We certainly do not want a centralised police force in this country. Nor do we want to invade the rights of local authorities, but some way has got to be found out of this difficulty and anomaly. The police have very great powers. The police must have very great powers in all parts of the country. Just because they have great powers, it is essential that they shall be effectively answerable to public authority. The only way of asserting public authority is to establish the ultimate authority of Parliament, which represents the whole of the people.
I admit that this question involves the need for great care and thought, and maybe this is a matter which should be sent to a Select Committee of the House to consider and to recommend to us how we can find ways of raising matters about the police in general without the difficulties I have mentioned. It may be that there should be preliminary explorations through the usual channels, but, in the end, this is a matter for the House as a whole and would have to be, and must be, debated by the House as a whole.
The ultimate issue, which is the basis of our Motion, is the responsibility of the Home Secretary to the House for the affairs of the Metropolitan Police. There are some problems here too. This whole question bristles with problems.
The Home Secretary has a split official personality in this matter. On the one hand, he is responsible to Parliament for the Metropolitan Police and on the other hand, under the Police (Appeals) Acts, he is the appellate authority from disciplinary proceedings affecting the police. It seems to me that in the answers he gave on 5th November he was hinting at a conflict between these two capacities and suggesting that they were the cause of the difficulties in which he found himself.
It seems to me very easy to exaggerate this difficulty, and I think he did so on 5th November. For example, if the


Home Secretary insisted that there was a prima facie case for an inquiry, whatever the Commissioner of Police might think, I cannot see why that should affect in any way the impartial discharge of his appellate jurisdiction later on. To say that there is a prima facie case is not to prejudge the case. In any event, one thing seems clear. As things now are and without any alteration, the Secretary of State has a clear duty to Parliament in this matter which we are debating tonight. He made this clear himself in the answers he gave on 5th November. One or two of the answers in this respect I thought ambiguous, but one was absolutely clear when he said:
As Secretary of State I am responsible for the Metropolitan Police and for the Commissioner."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th November, 1959; Vol. 612, c. 1199]
I want to make clear that nothing I say tonight must be taken as directing criticism against the Commissioner, who, of course, is not in a position to defend himself. Everything I say, I want to make clear, is a criticism against the right hon. Gentleman, who has frankly and fully admitted in the answer I have quoted his responsibility to Parliament in this matter.
One of these responsibilities which has been referred to in many newspapers, including The Times and The Guardian, concerns the fact that public money is involved in this business—the payment of £300 plus costs to Mr. Garratt in satisfaction of damages in his civil action against police constable Eastmond. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman a number of questions in regard to this issue of public money because Parliament and the public have a right to know about the expenditure of public money.
The first question is one of fact. How much public money is involved in total? I understand that £300 was given in settlement of damages and that, in addition, full costs were awarded. What were the costs? We do not yet know how much public money is involved in this.
The second question is this. I take it from the supplementary answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave on 5th November, C. 1197 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, that the burden of this expenditure falls on the ratepayers. He said this, but I do not know if he meant it,

and I should be glad if he would clarify it. I should like to know, if it does fall on the ratepayers, on which ratepayers it falls and if any of it comes out of funds for which Parliament is responsible in any degree.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the decision to spend public money in this way is solely at the discretion of the Commissioner, and if there is any limit to the amount he can decide to pay and whether his decision needs directly or indirectly, prior or subsequent authorisation by the Secretary of State? I ask him to whom and how this expenditure is accounted for, and in what public accounts does it appear, so that it can be discussed at some stage by the people out of whose pockets it has been taken.
The final and fundamental question is one which was put extremely clearly today by The Times in its leading article, when it said:
The official position, so far taken up, does not make sense from whatever angle it is examined. If the officer did nothing wrong—and we have been told by Mr. Butler that no disciplinary proceedings are to be instituted—then £300 of public money has been spent for nothing. If, on the other hand, an offence or offences occurred, then those who have to foot the bill should have been told at once, and without all this evasive action, why their money had been spent.
This is a critical and fundamental question in regard to the use of public money, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will address himself tonight specifically to the question posed by The Times.
This brings me to the particular case that underlies the Motion. To raise questions about the alleged misconduct of the police, of course, puts one in great difficulties and it is important to get the matter into perspective. I want to make it quite clear that by raising a case or even a number of cases one is not attacking the police as a whole. Indeed, the opposite is the case.
I believe that we have the best police force in the world. I am very proud that our police are unarmed in spite of having to work in great cities, where there is a concentration of dangerous criminals, and that they can do this work unarmed, in spite of being undermanned. I must say, too, that one reason why we have a police force of which we can be so proud is because of the constant vigilance of Parliament.
It seems to me that we have in a matter of this sort a twofold duty. One is that we must stand firmly by the police in the proper discharge of their duties, especially when they have unpopular duties laid upon them by law and by Parliament. Secondly, it is inevitable that in human organisations there will be improper acts and, sometimes, people in the organisations who ought not to be in them. If there is any evidence of an improper act, it is just as important that we should ruthlessly expose it and that it should be punished. This is necessary to personal freedom: it is absolutely essential that every Briton should feel completely safe in any police station in the land and feel completely safe in his encounters with the police upon the streets. It is also necessary to the general good repute of the overwhelming majority of the police that any improper acts should be exposed and stamped upon, and that anyone found unworthy of being in a good force should be put out of it.
The worst service that can be done both to the cause of personal liberty and to the police is to give the slightest appearance of the automatic defence of the police whatever charges may be made in any particular case, or to give the appearance of attempting to cover up any abuse of authority.
The right hon. Gentleman has a special responsibility in his high office both for personal liberty and the repute of the police. I want to say that, whatever the right hon. Gentleman may say tonight, we do not like the way in which on 5th November he gave the appearance of trying to cover up something and trying to shelter himself behind the Commissioner. That is the sort of thing which stimulates public disquiet about the police.
When we look at this case, the thing that we cannot understand is, firstly, why no disciplinary inquiry was instituted, and, secondly, why public money was used, in effect, to prevent the facts from coming out in a civil action. For both of these acts the Secretary of State is responsible. That accentuates the impression that facts have been covered up which the public and we in Parliament should know.
There are two aspects of this failure to hold an inquiry. One is that it has been very unfair to Police Constable Eastmond, who has had no chance to state his side of the case at all; we have only had the other side stated all the time. According to the Sunday Dispatch of 8th November Police Constable Eastmond said that he
would welcome a full investigation into his case by Parliament …"—
if I may mention that to the noble Lord, the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke)—
or the Force.
The result of the mishandling of the case seems to me to be that Police Constable Eastmond has, in fact, been punished without any inquiry at all into the allegations made against him. In the article in the Sunday Dispatch it is said that he was
sweeping the floor in Wimbledon Police Station and making pots of tea for his fellow officers.
That is a very grave demotion for a man who has been given no chance to state his case either before an inquiry or before £300 was spent to stop the civil action.
I should like to ask whether Police Constable Eastmond agreed to pay £300 into court and to its being paid out to bring the civil action to an end—whether he did agree, or whether he agreed only under very great pressure. We should know that in the interest of this man.
In the absence of an inquiry and in the absence of the conclusion of the civil action we have heard only one side of the case. I am conscious of that. I am not forejudging the case, and I am certainly not crying out for retribution. There seems to me to be an overwhelming prima facie case for the holding of a disciplinary inquiry. That has been very widely agreed in the serious Press. Indeed, The Guardian of 17th November said:
Certainly the alleged facts in the case of Garratt v. Eastmond, now settled, could scarcely look worse for the police or more disquieting for the citizens.
That was said by The Guardian, a paper which weighs its words with very great care.
The case is covered by the Police (Discipline) Regulations, 1952, which contains a disciplinary code, breaches of


which render an officer liable to disciplinary proceedings. I think that paragraph 8 in the First Schedule of that code is the one appropriate to the allegations made in this case. It is headed:
Unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority.
It goes on to say:
… if a member of a police force—

(a) without good and sufficient cause makes any unlawful or unnecessary arrest, or
(b) uses any unnecessary violence to any prisoner or other person with whom he may be brought into contact in the execution of his duty, or
(c) is uncivil to any member of the public."

Unnecessary arrest is the first of the things that come into this section of the disciplinary code. When Police Constable Eastmond took Mr. Garratt to Putney Police Station, the charge preferred by the police constable was refused and, according to the accounts which have been published and which have not been contradicted, Superintendent Potter apparently apologised to Mr. Garratt and assured him that no charge lay against him. That seems an absolutely clear prima facie case of an unnecessary arrest. Here was an arrest, a charge refused, apologies offered and an assurance given that no charge would be made.
To my mind, perhaps the worst aspect of these allegations is the alleged attempt by Police Constable Eastmond to interfere with two private citizens, Mr. Garratt and Mr. Rix, talking together. In fact, they were talking about the evidence that they might give, but they could have been talking about anything else. Where are our liberties if two citizens cannot talk together in the street without police interference? This is what has been alleged and not contradicted in this case. I should have thought that a very grave allegation of this kind, made by two very respectable citizens, would automatically render it the subject of a disciplinary inquiry.
The allegations made in this case have been borne out by the settlement of the case out of court. We are told that the police lawyer said that the payment did not imply any admission whatever by the police. If he said that—and if not, I can be corrected—I would point out, first of all, that the payment was made with the consent of the court and, secondly, that the Home Secretary made a very interesting comment upon it on

5th November in answer to Questions, as reported in column 1198 of HANSARD. He said:
The payment was made into court without admission of liability. That is, of course, the technical thing that happens on these occasions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th November, 1959; Vol. 612, c. 1198.]
He could hardly have told us more clearly that the denial of liability when paying the £300 was a mere technicality.
In the light of all this, it seems to me inexplicable that there has not been a disciplinary inquiry. If there has not been such an inquiry on these facts and allegations, what is necessary to justify a disciplinary inquiry? Secondly, it is inexplicable that the Home Secretary has not given a clear and proper account of the expenditure of public money. I repeat, the right hon. Gentleman is responsible for both these acts.
We shall listen to what he says in a moment, but let me say this to him. So far his conduct has fallen below the responsibilities which he owes to the House. He has gravely mishandled and bungled this case. He must firmly take responsibility upon his own shoulders, and he must explain clearly and unambiguously why and on whose authority public money was spent in this case and why no disciplinary proceedings were taken. He must give us a much fuller and much more convincing explanation than he gave on 5th November and he must stop sheltering from his own responsibilities behind the Commissioner.

7.14 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I am glad that the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), in moving the Motion, paid tribute to the police. In the course of my speech I shall obviously have other opportunities of doing so, but I should first like to acknowledge that tribute. They are engaged in a very serious battle against crime. I am also glad that we have an opportunity of considering the issues raised by this case, and I will try to respond to the request of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends in answering as many as I can of the points which he has put to me.
I answered Questions on 5th November, and the House was then told that the matter would be raised on the


Adjournment. I welcomed that, for I thought that it would give me a fuller opportunity to give a proper account to the House than is possible in answer to Parliamentary Questions. I have been long enough in the House not to complain of criticism from the Opposition benches. I think that we live on that and, I hope, thrive on it, but what some outside organs fail to understand is that in a very crowded day, during Parliamentary Questions, at the beginning of the Session, there is not always that latitude to express oneself fully as there is on such an occasion as this.
I welcome the opportunity provided by the Opposition Motion. I will accept the right hon. Gentleman's invitation and go into these matters in some detail. I do not like being accused of lack of candour with the House, and I hope that it is not habitual with me. I will attempt to put all the facts, as best I can, before hon. Members, whether they like them or not, and then they will have the information in their possession.
Some of the published comment on this case is based on a misunderstanding of the relationship between a police officer and a police authority. First, I should like to clear up some confusion in the public mind on this matter. It will be well to remind ourselves of the constitutional position of the police officer. He is not the servant of any authority, local or central. Acting in the office of constable, he is answerable to the law and personally responsible for his actions. Neither the police authority nor the chief officer of the police force concerned has any legal liability in such a matter. That is the position in law of a police officer.
I am the police authority for the Metropolitan Police, and in that capacity, generally speaking, I have the same responsibilities as any of the other police authorities responsible for maintaining the police forces in this country; that is to say, it is my duty to see that the Metropolitan Police Force is efficiently maintained and administered.
With that preface, I come to the case of Garratt v. Eastmond which has given rise to the Motion. The events in question took place on 17th December, 1958. P.c. Eastmond, who was on traffic duty, stopped Mr. Rix for exceeding the speed

limit. Mr. Garratt, who was driving along the road at the time, stopped his car and proceeded to speak to Mr. Rix. What subsequently happened is to a considerable degree a matter of dispute, but there is no dispute that ultimately the constable took Mr. Garratt to the police station to charge him with the offence of assaulting the constable in the execution of his duty. The station officer refused to accept this charge and Mr. Garratt was released.
Following correspondence between Mr. Garratt's solicitors and the Commissioner's office, on 27th January Mr. Garratt issued a writ against Constable Eastmond claiming damages for assault and battery and for false imprisonment.
As I explained a few moments ago, a constable is not a servant or agent of the police authority or the chief officer of police, and therefore to have any chance of success such an action must be brought against the police officer himself and not against the Commissioner or the police authority, who have no legal liability for acts such as those alleged here of a police constable. We therefore have a normal case of a citizen exercising his undoubted right to obtain legal redress from a police constable who he considers has injured him by wrongful action.

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: Is it not a fact that the police authority has the opportunity to defend the officer, as an officer of the authority, if it thinks that the officer was right?

Mr. Butler: I have a passage in my speech on that point. I hope the hon. Lady will then see how the police authority stands behind the police officer. I think that no one can cavil at the accuracy of what I have said hitherto, namely, that this is a normal case of a citizen exercising his undoubted right—I will come to the hon. Lady's point-to obtain legal redress from a police constable who he considers has injured him by wrongful action.
It has been the practice of police authorities for many years to assist constables against whom writs are served in relation to their conduct on duty with the defence of the action. I am sure the House will agree that, generally speaking, this is a right policy. It has been followed by successive Home


Secretaries and, for many years past, it has been the practice to allow the Solicitor for the Metropolitan Police to act for a police constable defending such an action if he is requested by the officer concerned to do so. A police officer could, if he liked and asked, employ his own solicitor. In this case—this helps to answer one of the right hon. Gentleman's questions—the constable agreed to the Solicitor to the Metropolitan Police acting for him.
That means—I hope the House will realise it—that the duty of the solicitor was to act for Police Constable Eastmond in the ordinary way in which a solicitor acts for a client. Eastmond was his client, and it was the solicitor's duty to have regard to the interests of his client. That is an important point to be borne in mind. Moreover, experienced counsel was instructed by the solicitor to act for Eastmond, and on his advice—that is, the advice of counsel—the solicitor decided that the action ought to be settled and, the figure having been agreed, £300 was paid into court

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how far the action had advanced? Had a statement of claim been delivered? Had a defence been delivered? If it had, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what was in it?

Mr. Butler: I cannot go any further than I have done in describing the case, which is a matter for the court. The answer to both parts of the hon. Gentleman's intervention is in the affirmative. The plaintiff took the money out.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Did Constable Eastmond agree to the solicitor's action? The right hon. Gentleman said that Eastmond was the solicitor's client. Did Police Constable Eastmond agree, or was this done without consulting him?

Mr. Butler: My information is that he agreed, as he was working with the solicitor, and he accepted the advice of learned counsel.

Mr. Leo Abse: Were written instructions taken from the police officer by the solicitor, as is the general practice? For example, in the Trade Union movement, when solicitors act for members of a trade union they will not settle any case, whatever the

union may think, without taking written instructions from their client. In this case we are entitled to ask, in view of the special position that the officer obviously is in, being under the authority of a superior officer, whether written instructions were taken from the police officer.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Butler: There is no need for hon. Members to get quite so excited. I am trying to give the facts. I understand that written instructions were taken from the police officer. There is nothing behind this case about which the hon. Gentleman should get so excited.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Written instructions to settle?

Mr. Butler: I understand that written instructions were obtained from the police officer.

Mr. Paget: To settle?

Mr. Butler: My information is that instructions were taken from him and that he agreed to this course, namely, to £300 being paid into court. He was working with his solicitor and with the learned counsel provided.

Mr. Silverman: Did he know that public money would be involved?

Mr. Butler: Of course he did, because he was being supported by public funds, for which I accept full responsibility and about which I am going to tell the House. The constable obviously knew that he was being supported by public funds.
I wish to make this clear. The plaintiff took the money out and the settlement was without admission of liability. This may seem to the House to be a contradiction in terms—that one is, on the one hand, denying that one is liable and, on the other hand, conceding the plaintiff's claim to the extent of paying him money. I realise the difficulty which hon. Members are in, but I am advised that it is not an uncommon situation in litigation. The position is that there was not and is not an admission of liability. That, as any lawyer will know, is an exact description of what happened. [Interruption.] There were 43 Questions on that day and I am as experienced as anyone in answering Parliamentary


Questions. I may not have used the correct technical language as understood by solicitors, but I am now attempting to state the facts. I am not a lawyer, and I apologise if I have used technical language wrongly.
I come now to the point referred to in the Motion, namely, the payment of £300 out of public funds. The right hon. Gentleman asked me some questions about the money. The money is under grant and, therefore, presumably the payment is made from the Metropolitan Police Fund. It is accounted for by the Receiver of the Metropolitan Police and the Permanent Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office. The accounts are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General and are published in the Appropriation Accounts. Part of this money, it being the Metropolitan Police Fund, would be made up out of rates and partly out of the national grant, because, like all police forces, this force exists partly on a national grant and partly upon money from ratepayers. I think that answers the point about the source of the money.
I wish to discuss now the responsibility of myself as Home Secretary. As Home Secretary, I had direct responsibility for authorising the payment of this money. It has been for many years the normal practice of police authorities to stand financially behind a policeman against whom an action is brought arising out of his conduct as a police officer. I am sure that the practice is a sound one, and I will give the history of it so as to show the background against which I was acting and against which my predecessors have been acting for many years. I have looked up all the precedents and records. It was approved by a Committee of the Police Council in 1931, but it had been in operation before. It was commended by the Oaksey Committee, which the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) knows all about, in 1949.
This practice has two good reasons behind it. First, a police constable cannot be expected to carry out his duties effectively if he must on every occasion on which he finds it necessary to take action pause to consider the risk of an action being brought against him for the costs of which he would be personally

liable. It is surely right that he should, in general, be able to rely on the support of the police authority in meeting the cost of any action arising out of the exercise of his duty and any damages awarded against him. In this respect he ought not to be in any different position from an officer employed by a public authority. In the case of such an officer, an action would be brought against the authority, and it is only because of the special status of the constable, to which I referred in my opening remarks on purpose so as to make this clear, that an action must be brought against him as an individual.
The second reason, which has been proved by experience to be right, is that it is in the interests of the person who brings an action against a policeman that responsibility for costs or damages should be accepted by the police authority. Otherwise, an aggrieved person might be awarded substantial sums and entirely fail to recover them from the defendant. It would be indefensible to allow that to happen.
Therefore, bearing in mind all the precedents and the long-established practice, I sanctioned the use of £300 of public money for the settlement, and I hope that the House will endorse my decision.
I come now to the question whether disciplinary charges should have been preferred against the constable. Although it is not mentioned in the Motion, I suspect that it is the question which has given rise to most concern among hon. Members and the public at large. There is a feeling that, if the published version of the event of 17th December is true, a police officer is being allowed to get away with grave misconduct without public exposure in the courts and without any disciplinary punishment.
There is also the feeling that it is a corollary to public co-operation with the police that a policeman who misbehaves and abuses his powers in relation to the public should be punished, and severely punished. From my experience, that is normally the case. It is one of my most painful duties as Home Secretary to deal with some of these cases. A policeman found guilty on a disciplinary charge has a right of appeal to me, as I am the appellate


authority, and I can assure hon. Members that the standards of discipline in the police are extremely high.
At this point, it is necessary for me briefly to explain where the responsibility for discipline rests in the Metropolitan Police and what is the position of the Secretary of State. The disciplinary authority is the Commissioner. This responsibility is placed upon him by a succession of statutory provisions—which I have set out here in detail—beginning with the Metropolitan Police Act of 1829. As Home Secretary, or police authority, I have no responsibility whatever for the initiation of disciplinary proceedings, and no power to review them or to express an opinion upon them. The decision is taken by the Commissioner or by his responsible officers.
My responsibility arises only if, when disciplinary proceedings are taken and certain punishments are awarded, the man who has been punished appeals to me under the Police Appeals Act. I should emphasise that the appeal is not to me as police authority but to me as Secretary of State, and it is an appeal that is available to a police officer in any force. It was, therefore, a matter for the Commissioner to decide in this case whether a disciplinary charge should be brought.
I have been in touch with the Commissioner, and he has authorised me to say that he reached the conclusion not to take formal disciplinary proceedings in this case, partly because the proceedings connected with the civil action had been hanging over the head of the man for a long time, during which time the Commissioner had thought it right, in the interests of all concerned, to withdraw the man from his former duties. Further, there was considerable doubt whether the evidence would support the major allegations against him.
Having reviewed all the circumstances and all the available evidence, the Commissioner came to the conclusion that formal proceedings would not be the appropriate course. I would only add that the constable concerned was removed last January from the traffic duties on which he had been previously engaged, and I am informed that it is not the Commissioner's intention that the man should return to those duties.
To sum up: the Commissioner is responsible for the discipline of his force. He is not a man who will tolerate the covering up of any officer who has brought the service into disrepute. Hon. Members may not all agree with the Commissioner's action in this particular case, but I have no doubt that he took it after exhaustive consideration and with a full sense of responsibility.
I must now face the House with this position—

Mr. George Jeger: If the right hon. Gentleman would allow me to interrupt him—

Mr. Butler: I would rather proceed with this part of what I have to say, and then I will sit down.
Since the Commissioner is the sole disciplinary authority in the Metropolitan Force, the only action I can take if I regard a decision of his as impairing the efficiency of the force is to recommend that his appointment be terminated. In view of what I have said today, and previously, I must tell the House that I do not intend to make any such submission. That is not to say that I have not certain proposals as to how we should handle these matters, and the House may ask where we go from here.
The case, though starting from a small incident, does have underlying it a number of questions of great importance, both to the public and to the police, in which there is evidence of widespread interest and about which there is evidence of considerable anxiety. A number of questions arise. One of them was raised by the right hon. Gentleman in his opening remarks, namely, that we cannot discuss a provincial force, and if we discuss details of discipline in the Metropolitan Force the Secretary of State is put in what may be described as an ambiguous and difficult position.
Nevertheless, many other questions arise. There is the relationship of the central government to the police authorities, and to the police themselves. There is the relationship of the police authority to the chief constable—and, if we like to bring it nearer home, there is the relationship of the Secretary of State to the Commissioner. There is the relationship between the chief officer and his force. There is, as in this case, the problem of


the constable who was sued m the civil courts in respect of conduct which may also amount to a disciplinary offence. There is the question of the payment of public money, and the practice that has hitherto been followed in making it available.
Above all, there is the relationship, mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, between the police service generally and the public. I do not believe that in modern conditions the police can carry out their heavy responsibilities without adequate public co-operation and the fullest measure of public confidence. The relations between the police and the public are therefore fundamental to the success of police operations—and, indeed, fundamental to the maintenance of law and order in the community.
Since I have been at the Home Office. I have had a great deal of experience, not only in connection with the force in the Metropolis but also with certain provincial forces. The problems that I have mentioned do not arise solely from this case. There are others with which I have had to deal, and which the House has noticed.
There are also wider questions of organisation, recruitment, training and discipline, as well as questions of the right attitude of the police to the community and of the community to the police. I have given a good deal of thought to these wider questions. A Motion has been put down on the Order Paper by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and his friends of the Liberal Party.
[That this House, whilst demanding that appropriate compensation be paid to those whose personal liberty is unjustifiably interfered with, and, in particular, to any persons wrongfully arrested by the police, recognises the valuable services conscientiously rendered by the great majority of the police force in this country in spite of inadequate manpower, regrets that there are signs of a growing gulf between the general public and the police; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take all necessary steps to ensure that recruitment to the police force is encouraged by adequate remuneration and improved conditions, and that members of the police force are relieved of the excessive burden of duties caused

by traffic congestion and traffic regulation and are thereby enabled to perform more effectively the essential duties of preventing crime.]
The right hon. Member for Smethwick has mentioned the possibility of appointing a Select Committee.
What are we to do? The issues in question—recruitment, training and discipline and organisation, the relationship of central and local authorities to the police and their relations to this House, and the relations of the police to the public—are complex. Underlying them are constitutional and legal principles of great difficulty and supreme importance—as I have found in my own experience.
My own impression is that the time has come to have them examined with the authority and impartiality of an independent inquiry. Therefore, what I would propose to do is to listen to the rest of this debate with a view to deciding, in the light of the speeches made, what would be the best form for this inquiry to take. These various issues would include those lying behind this case and other cases affecting the police that have aroused interest in recent months, not only here but in other parts of Britain. I suggest that it is to these larger issues that we should address ourselves. The House would not then feel that we were burking any of the questions raised in this case, or in other cases.
Having said that, I would add that I would certainly be ready to enter into any conversations with a view to implementing what I have said; and I would invite the House to reject the Motion that is now before it, in the hope that the issues of personal liberty and constitutional law will be resolved by our joint endeavour in this Parliament, in the interest of the relations between the police and the public.

7.39 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas: In his closing words, the Home Secretary gave an assurance that I am sure will be welcomed by the House, but I think that his reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) will not be considered adequate by either this House or the country. He has left unanswered certain very important points.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is right and proper for the police authority to stand behind the police constable who is brought to court, or who faces a charge that might lead to the payment by him of costs and damages. This House has always been sensitive about the liberty of the subject. After all, that is almost its raison d'être. Above all, we are the guardians of the people's civil liberties. It is, therefore, I believe, right and proper that this debate should have been initiated by my right hon. Friend, for the price of liberty is still eternal vigilance and the House should not overlook responsible principles that are at stake.
I believe that the Home Secretary has not removed the fear of the maladroit manner in which this case has been handled. I believe that a succession of unfortunate mistakes has given an impression that need never have been given, and about the worst thing that can happen where the police and the public are in any form of conflict is for the appearance to be given that something has been covered up. I believe that the people who suffer most of all in these circumstances are the police. My right hon. Friend quoted The Times of this morning and The Guardian of yesterday, but I believe that not only the Press but the public as a whole will have awaited the Minister's statement tonight with some anxiety.
I come to the answer that the right hon. Gentleman has given us. It is quite clear that the police constable, who after all has his professional career and reputation at stake, is in an impossible position. It was possible, and I believe it should probably have been done, for him to be charged under paragraph 8 of the First Schedule of the Police (Discipline) Regulations, 1952. My right hon. Friend read out that provision. He did not remind the House that the police officer was charged, however, under paragraph I of the First Schedule, the Discipline Code. This deals with
Discreditable conduct …discredit on the reputation of the force or of the police service.
The interesting point is that although, at first, the officer was charged under this disciplinary code, the Commissioner did not proceed with it. Indeed, I think it fair to say that the case was held over

because Garratt brought an action against Eastmond, and the astonishing thing is that the Commissioner, without any hearing of the charge after it had been made, had it withdrawn, and I believe that Eastmond has never since been charged. Instead, as the House knows, he has been transferred to garage duties. Now we are told that he is to be punished permanently by not being allowed to assume normal police duties, without having had an opportunity to be represented at a hearing before his superior officers.

Mr. S. Silverman: The Home Secretary has said very fairly that when the matter was settled the instructions of the police officer, as the defendant and as the solicitor's client, were taken in writing to settle the matter and to allow the payment to be made Of course, the police constable could have refused to give those instructions, and if he had refused to give those instructions the matter would have proceeded to trial and the court would have decided which of the two was telling the truth.

Mr. Thomas: I do not dispute what my hon. Friend has said. I am advised—and I can only give the House the advice that I have received—that, in this case, the police officer was very anxious for the case to be proceeded with in the first instance. I am told that the police constable was very anxious for this case to be tried in court at the beginning, but for some reason or other his superior officers decided that it should not come up.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: As this sort of allegation is entirely contrary to what we have heard, might it not be to the benefit of the House if we were given the source of the hon. Gentleman's information?

Mr. Thomas: All I am saying is that the officer concerned was anxious for the case to go to court.

Mr. Iremonger: Who told the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. S. Silverman: That is not the business of the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger).

Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman must wait until he has an opportunity to address the House.
Although there is a disciplinary code laid down for the Metropolitan Police, I believe that the Commissioner—and I have no hesitation in being a little critical of the Commissioner—behaved in a strange way. The Home Secretary ought to assure us, and the police force, too, that in cases where alleged circumstances of this nature arise the officer is entitled automatically to expect the disciplinary code to come into operation. I should have thought that that would be a protection both for the public and for the officer. I cannot for the life of me think of any other walk of life where a disciplinary code, which has occupied the time of Parliament and the terms of which were agreed after long care and deliberation here, would not automatically come into operation in a case as serious as this.

Sir Godfrey Nicholson: Am I or am I not right in thinking that disciplinary cases are heard in private?

Mr. Thomas: I would presume that if a case were heard in private the officer concerned would have the right of representation there by his colleagues and by the Police Federation.
I want the Home Secretary to clear up one matter for me. He said that written instructions had been obtained from this officer for the settlement. Were these written instructions obtained under pressure? It is a fair question. Also I believe we ought to know whether these written instructions were instructions to negotiate or instructions to settle, and the date on which they were given.
We have not only the question of the liberty of the subject, of the man in the street, but we have the great responsibility to ensure that the police force, too, is made aware that in a case of this importance and this magnitude everything is done to ensure its good name and fair treatment for the people who are concerned within the service. I still have an uneasy feeling that pressure was brought to bear upon the officer who wanted the case heard in court, and I should like an assurance from the Attorney-General that such was not the case.
I move to my conclusion. I believe that the House has had from the Home Secretary an assurance which is worth a great deal. I hope that this inquiry

which he is to set up, and which he calls an independent inquiry, will none the less have representation from this House. I believe that this is not a matter for judges alone. I do not believe that it is a matter merely for those who are concerned in the operation and the administration of the law. I would like this House represented, because few things are more important than a right relationship of trust and confidence between the public and the police force. It is a tribute to the police forces that very few incidents of this sort occur in the crowded island in which we live. I hope that the Attorney-General, who, I expect, will reply to the debate, will feel able to answer some of the questions which I have raised.

7.50 p.m.

Sir William Robson Brown: I am bound to say that I cannot support or agree with the Motion as it stands or the narrow interpretation which has been applied to it. I think that there is a far wider interpretation of the matter to which the House must give its attention tonight.
I entirely support the practice of giving financial and legal aid to police officers in circumstances similar to these, because police officers must be protected. This is the only effective way I can see whereby they can be properly protected.
I speak tonight as the Member of Parliament for Mr. Garratt; he is one of my constituents. I feel bound to put before the House the position in which he has found himself from the beginning and in which he is at this very moment. I am sure that the House will wish me to inform it about Mr. Garratt. He is a man of the highest character. I have known him and his family for many years. I know of no one more respected in the district, and I have to say that public indignation in the constituency of Esher is strong and powerful at this moment. The people of Esher are very pleased indeed to know that this debate is taking place on the Floor of the House of Commons now. It demonstrates the interest of Parliament in the rights of the citizen in a very powerful and effective way.
I am informed by Mr. Garratt that the statement in the Spectator is a reasonable and fair outline of what precisely


took place. There were two gaps in the inevitably short outline which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave which, I know, he did not leave deliberately but which are very important in judging this matter. First, Mr. Garratt did not stop and speak to Mr. Rix with the policeman there. He stopped and spoke to Mr. Rix well down the road, far away from the policeman. It was the policeman who came up and addressed these two gentlemen. I use the word "gentlemen" quite precisely. Also, it was Mr. Rix who telephoned for the police from Putney Police Station.
This is no storm in a teacup. Mr. Garratt suffered shock and was under very grave stress that morning. There was the matter of injury also. I sincerely hope that we shall have an inquiry, and I will explain why. Mr. Garratt had to have first-aid treatment from the police surgeon that morning, and he was retained at the police station until mid-day.
There is another important matter which he has asked me to convey to the House. He has the highest praise for the courtesy, consideration and kindness shown to him by the inspector and superintendent at Putney Police Station. I believe that that is typical of our police forces and police officers throughout the country who operate under great strain and who are overworked. We are dealing here with an exceptional case which must be considered as such. It is Mr. Garratt's especial wish that I should emphasise that he found that kindness extended all round by everybody in the police force, with the one exception.
What I fail to understand is why Police Constable Eastmond was allowed or advised to settle out of court. I am not a lawyer, but that appears to me to be an indictment against him. I do not understand why, if the officials of Scotland Yard had considered that Police Constable Eastmond did not behave correctly, they did not proceed with this matter and bring out the facts in the courts of the land. That is the thing I do not like about it. Indeed, I dislike it very strongly. Settling out of court has a bad taste and is capable of only one construction.
Another thing which puzzles me is this. I am an ordinary member of the public, with no legal background, and I

cannot understand why, after he was tacitly advised to settle for £300, no disciplinary action was taken against the officer afterwards. That is a double contradiction. The statement of the Home Secretary conveying the opinion of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police does not hold water. He suggests that the civil action had been hanging for so long over the head of the policeman that he thought he had suffered enough. But did it not also hang over the head of Mr. Garratt, and was not Mr. Garratt the offended party? Mr. Garratt is no legal authority or expert. He accepted this money in the natural belief that his character and judgment had been vindicated and he had not acted in a way which was open to any criticism. His good name has been at stake.
In defence of Mr. Garratt, I should like to say that he would not have taken any further action on that particular day, because the kindness of the police officers at Putney was so great and he felt that honour had been satisfied, except for the blazoning across the headlines of the Press of the country the facts of the whole incident—perhaps because of the public character of Mr. Rix, who was well-known and whose doings made good copy.
From that day to this, Mr. Garratt has been in the extraordinarily embarrassing position of never being heard in court. In fairness to the police officer, also, I must add that neither has he. Having in mind the disquiet in the public mind about the matter, the fact that it is being debated in the House today and the fact that both Mr. Garratt and Police Constable Eastmond are now under a shadow, I should have thought that it would be within the competence of the Commissioner to decide that the right and proper thing would be to say, "We will have an inquiry in order to have the matter settled and thrashed out and be done with it …" That is the British way of doing things, not to try to smother the facts or smooth or gloss them over, not to avoid publicity but to invite it.
The only satisfactory feature of a very unsatisfactory state of affairs is the statement made by my right hon. Friend—which is so typical of him—that he immediately recognises the gravity of the situation and suggests that steps should


be taken so that nothing of the kind shall ever occur again. If Mr. Garratt is to have any satisfaction out of this matter, I think that that will be it. The amount of money paid to him was no satisfaction to him. At the beginning he entered the writ knowing full well that he would have to pay very heavy costs if the case went against him, and it was only on the advice of his counsel that he accepted the money to have done with a very unpleasant business. He felt that at that time he had been vindicated. The only ultimate vindication he may have now is in knowing that, arising out of this very unpleasant and unsavoury incident, a committee of inquiry will be set up and, perhaps, never again shall we have such a situation in our country and both the police and the British public will be adequately protected.
Even at this late stage, I make an appeal to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I understand that he has no power in the matter, and I fully appreciate that, but will he consult the Commissioner with a view to meeting the public disquiet expressed? I have known the Commissioner, as the Chief of Police for Surrey. He is an excellent man who was rightly and justly promoted. I hope that my right hon. Friend will make known to the Commissioner the feeling of hon. Members expressed in this debate so that, even now, he may graciously acquiesce in the will of the House. He will not lose the respect of his men or the public by this action, but only enhance it.

7.59 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I am wholly dissatisfied with the explanation we have received. Of course, it is the duty of the governing authority of the police force to stand by a constable against whom an action is brought. There are two reasons. In the first place, if constables did not have authority standing behind them, they would be in an impossible position. Secondly, the reputation of the police force itself is at stake. Of course, it is the duty of the police force to take action, but do we defend the constable and the reputation of the police force by paying a sum of money into court with a denial of liability?

Mr. S. Silverman: There was no denial.

Mr. Paget: With a denial of liability

Mr. Silverman: There was no admission.

Mr. Paget: I will leave technicalities aside. With an admission or with a denial of liability, what difference does it make?

Mr. Silverman: It makes a lot of difference.

Mr. Paget: Will my hon. Friend please not interrupt?
That is not defending the police force and it is not defending the constable.
There is a third party concerned here, namely, the public. If the police are entitled to the co-operation of the public, as of course they are, then there is a two-way duty. There is a duty on behalf of the Government and of the police force to see that where a member of the public is abused the matter is settled satisfactorily. The Home Secretary said, "I am not the authority to order a disciplinary inquiry". Of course, he is not, and I agree with that entirely. His duty arose when he was asked to sanction, as he had to sanction, the payment into court of public money with a denial of liability. That is where his responsibility lay, as he agreed in his statement.
At that point it was the right hon. Gentleman's job—and this is where I think he signally failed—to send for the Commissioner and say, "A charge has been brought against a policeman by a member of the public. That charge has to be investigated. Either it will be investigated by a disciplinary inquiry, which it is for you in your discretion to decide, or it will be examined by the tribunal which the offended member of the public"—in this case Mr. Garratt—"has chosen. It will be examined by the court and public money will not be used to prevent the High Court of England examining this charge brought by Mr. Garratt against a policeman and, by implication, against the police. Public funds are involved because the reputation of the police in its relationship with the people is involved. As Home Secretary, I am the guardian here, and I say that public funds must not be used


to prevent access to the court and a decision by the court".
We have this absurd position. Mr. Garratt has been put in a position whereby, if he brings an action to vindicate himself and recovers less than £300, he has to pay the costs of both sides. That is the point of paying money into court. He is in a position which is utterly unfair if he wishes to vindicate himself and public money is being used to put him in that unfair position and to prevent him vindicating himself. Equally, the police constable is denied his right to vindicate himself and, as a result, the police constable has been punished, put into opprobrium, abused without trial, without inquiry and without resource.
I should like to know a little more about the question of consent.

Mr. Ronald Bell: How can the hon. and learned Gentleman say that the police constable was denied the opportunity of vindicating himself? The action could not have been settled without his consent.

Mr. Paget: That is precisely the point I am coming to. I am not in the least satisfied on that matter.
This action has been paid for at the public expense. What I want to ask the Attorney-General is this: may we see the pleadings and the consent? I can well visualise what may have happened. There was first a consultation with the solicitor. Instructions were taken from the policeman. This is what "instructions" in this sense means. He told the solicitor what his case was and what his answer was. The solicitor then said, "A small award may be made against you. I think it would be advisable to pay a sum into court with a denial of liability". One can very well understand a policeman, however confident he may feel of his innocence, saying, "Whatever you advise, as long as it is paid in with a denial of liability".
The next step is that the money is taken out and the policeman has no further voice in the matter. He does not have to consent to the money being taken out. Once the money is put in, it is for the plaintiff to take it out. I am not in the least satisfied that the policeman in this instance has at any time consented

to the case being settled in this manner. I have no doubt that he was informed and agreed that a sum should be paid into court with a denial of liability, but, as we now understand, the consequences were not consequences which would have been apparent to a policeman in these circumstances.
As the Home Secretary said, a policeman is a constable and a constable is an officer of state. He is a person known to the common law with rights and duties under the common law. One of those rights is to prefer a charge if he sees the law broken. It is his right and his duty. In these circumstances, what authority does there exist in anybody—in the right hon. Gentleman, in an inspector, or in a chief of police—to refuse a charge of a constable? The essence of a constable's office is the authority and right to prefer a charge.
What about Mr. Rix? What has happened to the charge against Mr. Rix? Why has it not been proceeded with? Was he or was he not exceeding the speed limit? Also, what about the charge against Mr. Garratt? [An HON. MEMBER: "He has rights too."] Precisely. One of the ways of settling the matter would have been to institute proceedings in a criminal court. What has happened to the charge against him and his right to answer it as well as the constable's right to prefer it?
I believe that in a charge against a policeman for an offence on duty against a member of the public, the sanctioning of the use of public money to be paid into court with a denial of liability, thus leaving the matter undecided and in the air, is a grave error of judgment and one which we should not pass over.

8.10 p.m.

Sir Hugh Linstead: I find myself compelled to refer to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) concerning the duty of the Secretary of State to interfere at a stage before a decision is made to settle a case because public money is likely to be involved in settlement. It seems to me to be wholly wrong for the Secretary of State to interfere in what is, after all, a private matter between, in this case, the police constable and his legal advisers.
The Secretary of State surely must not come into the picture until that decision has been taken by the police constable on the advice given to him by what are his own personal legal advisers. After that decision has been taken, it is surely then for the Secretary of State to decide whether the settlement is to be supported out of public money. If the Secretary of State attempts to come in at an earlier stage, it seems to me that he is taking upon his shoulders a responsibility which constitutionally must be accepted for good or for bad by the police constable himself.

Mr. R. A. Butler: That represents the position entirely.

Sir H. Linstead: I am glad to have that unexpected reinforcement from my right hon. Friend. That was my reaction upon hearing what the hon. and learned Member for Northampton had to say.
It is clear that the issues raised by this incident are complex, and yet I feel deeply that the House must keep in the forefront of this debate a simple fact and a simple question. The simple fact is that a member of the public desiring to perform a public duty by giving evidence against the police was—I do not like the word, but I must use it—assaulted by a police officer. That is the simple fact to be kept before us. The question is, by what means can the public be satisfied that justice has been done in those circumstances? I cannot feel that up to the present the public is satisfied that justice has been done. I do not see an easy, simple solution to the problem, but I do say that that is the question which overhangs this debate.
The incident itself developed in three stages. The first was on the road, which has been sufficiently described and discussed already. The second stage, however, deserves a little more examination, and I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Sir W. Robson Brown) referred to it. We ought to have regard and respect for the action that was taken by the police officers at Putney Station when the incident came to their notice. Looking at the matter through public eyes, we may well feel that an incident of this kind ought not to be suppressed. If, however, we look at it for a moment through police eyes, those

two police officers were faced with an almost impossible situation to rectify, and yet by patience, tact and courtesy Inspector Doak and Superintendent Potter were able almost to bring their boat home to harbour. It was an amazing achievement when one considers the wrecked condition of the vessel when it first came their way. It was a compliment to them that at that stage Mr. Garratt declared himself satisfied and was content to leave the matter where it was. It was only the opening up of the case in the daily papers which led him, in his own self-defence, for the sake of his own reputation and his standing as a civil servant, to start his action.
At the third stage, when the action was started, it seems to me that it got on the wrong foot again. The police had got themselves almost in the clear locally and then the action got into Scotland Yard and things went wrong. It is remarkable that, even at that stage, Mr. Garratt has said that had he received a straightforward statement of apology in writing such as he accepted verbally from Putney police station he would have been content to let the matter rest there.

The questions raised by this case are, first, one that we have discussed already: why was there no formal disciplinary inquiry? Then comes the question raised in the Motion concerning the payment out of public funds. Finally, there is the question of the respective rôles of the Home Secretary and the Commissioner of Police. At the risk of going over ground we have already traversed, I want to say a word about the first of those questions: why has there been no formal disciplinary inquiry?

It is interesting that a year ago, in December, 1958, the Commissioner had decided to hold a disciplinary inquiry. It was only when he found that Mr. Garratt was not prepared to forgo his right to bring the matter to the courts that the Commissioner decided that the disciplinary inquiry would have to be dropped. That seems to me to be a perfectly proper attitude for him to take. It would lead to all sorts of confusion if there were to be a disciplinary inquiry by the police coming to one conclusion and, possibly, an action in the High Court subsequently coming to a completely different conclusion.

The Commissioner, therefore, is surely right in saying, "With an action in the High Court pending, we cannot have a disciplinary inquiry." What I am not clear about is the converse of that and why there is any objection to holding a disciplinary inquiry after there has been either a settlement or a conclusion of the case in the High Court. It must be a matter for the Commissioner's judgment and for the judgment of all of us, but I cannot feel that merely to say that twelve months have elapsed is by itself a sufficient ground for changing a decision which the Commissioner had evidently made in December, 1958.

It seems to me that if the Commissioner is to defend and indemnify in civil actions, he must apply other sanctions in appropriate cases. Surely, it cannot be sufficient for disciplinary purposes in a great police force that whatever the decision of the High Court may be, that terminates the matter, because the affairs to which the High Court may direct its mind may be quite different from the matters directly concerned with the discipline of the force to which the Commissioner has to direct his mind.

Concerning the payment out of public funds, the case has been fully enough argued already this evening. My own feeling is that the action taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in this case was inevitable and proper. If a police officer does not have absolute certainty that he will be defended out of public money against any action that is brought against him in the pursuance of his duty, I do not see how he can carry out his duty. Every time that he is called upon to disperse a crowd, every time that he is called upon to draw his truncheon, must he think, "If I use this truncheon, if I use force, will I find myself faced with the cost of defending an action for unlawful assault?" That would be quite intolerable. Therefore, it is inevitable that public funds should stand behind every constable who is challenged in the performance of his duties as a constable.

As to the respective rôles of my right hon. Friend and the Commissioner, I do not think enough emphasis has been placed tonight upon one fundamental and important political fact, and that is

that police forces should never be directly subordinate to the Executive. It seems to me that the phrase "political police" is all too well-known, with all its unhappy connotations, for us to be prepared ever to see a Minister of the Crown with a direct and immediate responsibility to the police force and with the right of directing the police when they shall take proceedings and when they shall not.

Mr. Paget: Tell that to the Kenya Government.

Sir H. Linstead: I would at least go as far as this with the hon. and learned Gentleman. It was Colonel Young, Commissioner of the City of London Police, who came home from Kenya exactly on that issue, because he said that he, as chief officer of the police, was not going to be directed in his actions by the executive Government. I would not myself complain that in the case that has been put from the other side of the House sufficient importance has not been attached to the essentiality of keeping police forces independent of political pressure and political influence.

Mr. G. Thomas: Would the hon. Gentleman further his argument by saying who he thinks should, in turn, control the Commissioner? I think that there must be some point of appeal for those who are under the Commissioner.

Sir H. Linstead: That is essentially a case of the centuries-old question—quis custodiet ipsos custodes—who is to control the police; and I suppose that there is no satisfactory answer to it. It can hardly be Parliament, it cannot be the Executive, and it must therefore be a resultant of forces, with the police, Parliament and the Executive all pulling in their different directions and maintaining a sort of equilibrium which is accepted by the public.
Just because of the essential claim of the police forces to independence, I think there is a special obligation upon chief constables and upon the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police to be ready to satisfy the public, not only that justice has been done in a particular case, but that justice appears openly and manifestly to have been done. I have a rough suspicion, knowing a great deal of the background of this case, that here rough


justice has in fact been done, but what I cannot say is that justice openly and publicly appears to have been done.
If I have any lesson to draw from what has happened and any advice to give, it would be to Scotland Yard not to be afraid of publicity. If there is one thing that restores public confidence, it is the feeling that all the cards, good and bad, have been put on the table. I think that is the great lesson which is to be learned from the unfortunate happenings which we are examining tonight.
I am bound to conclude my remarks with a question. I know that in my constituency, where the affair happened, the public are not satisfied. I cannot see any easy solution to satisfy them. It is clear that the responsibility is not upon my right hon. Friend. It is clear that the responsibility rests on the Commissioner, but equally, as an independent police officer, he is entitled to take his own decisions and to stand by them. I am not too ready to challenge a decision taken by a great public servant in the exercise of his own undoubted responsibility. I leave the matter with a question mark of dissatisfaction, hoping that the road that has been opened by my right hon. Friend—the road of an inquiry into the whole of this delicate situation between the Executive and the police force—will be examined, and that something a little more satisfying than has come out of this case will be the result.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Throughout the whole of this debate there have been constant references to very interesting and important technicalities. I do not think that the public are greatly interested in technicalities, though I confess a great interest in them myself, and I sometimes wonder why people fail to realise that it is on a proper understanding of what are called the technicalities of the law in oases of this kind that rests ultimately the protection of the liberty of the subject and the avoidance of our degeneration into a police State.
What the public are interested in, and the cause of the dissatisfaction to which every Member who has taken part in the debate has testified, is that we do not know now what happened at this place

and on that date. The hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) said that, in fact, Mr. Garratt was assaulted. How does he know? It is perfectly true that Mr. Garratt says so, and I think it is probably true that Mr. Rix says so too, but we are told by the Home Secretary that the police officer concerned denies it. Here we have a case in which an incident took place, in which allegations of a serious kind are made against a police officer, in which it is said that the police officer—and I do not think it is said so far that he actually denies them—at any rate does not admit them. Surely the first public interest is to resolve that conflict and that ambiguity and to try to find out what the facts are.
What the public are interested to know is whether the police officer concerned acted in this way or not. Their dissatisfaction is increased because it seems to them that the whole conduct of the matter has been developed in order to avoid any inquiry into that question. That is what their dissatisfaction is about. It has been made perfectly clear in the course of the debate that if Mr. Garratt was anxious to establish the truth of his allegations, and if the police officer was anxious to establish his innocence of the accusations, there was a wide variety of public or private methods open to them under which evidence could have been called on both sides, the one weighed against the other, and some objective third-party judgment arrived at.
There could have been an inquiry held by the Commissioner. He started one and decided not to continue with it. I believe I am right in saying—I am not sure—that under the disciplinary code the police officer himself, if the Commissioner did not institute an inquiry, could have demanded one, just as an officer in the Army can demand a court-martial in order to clear his name of any improper accusation made against him.

Sir Kenneth Pickthorn (Crlton): In the Navy.

Mr. Silverman: I beg the hon. Member's pardon, but what is he saying?

Sir K. Pickthorn: But I am not quite sure he still can.

Mr. Silverman: I am not sure, either. I said so. An officer in the Army certainly can. I am not quite sure whether


under the latest disciplinary code a police officer has a right in corresponding circumstances to demand an inquiry. I think he has, but I agree I am not sure.
Then there is another method, from the public's point of view the most satisfactory of all, though it is the most expensive and imposes the heaviest burden upon the plaintiff. If one brings an action one is not bound to settle it, and if a payment is made into court in such a way that it leaves in doubt whether one's accusation was true or not or whether the accusations made against oneself are true or not, one can say, "I will not settle this action. I want it fought. I want a decision of the court." It is quite true that if there is a payment into court one takes a risk about costs. It is because one may establish liability against the defendant, but one's assessment of the damages may have been wrong; one may recover less, in which case one wins one's case, loses the costs of both sides and gets nothing financially out of it. But one does get out of it what presumably one sets out to gain, namely, the clearing of one's name of the accusations brought against it. Then the defendant is not bound to make a payment into court. He, too, can say, "I am not guilty of what is alleged against me. I am not going to make any payment. I am not going to allow any payment to be made in my name. I want the whole thing investigated, and I will abide by the decision of the court."
It would be most interesting to know why the police officer, if he really denied what was alleged against him, was not advised to do that. The Home Secretary has said quite clearly—and we must accept it from him, in spite of what has been said since in the debate—that no kind of pressure was brought upon the police officer, that the solicitor to the Metropolitan Police acted purely as the police officer's solicitor looking after his interests.
What were his interests? The police officer had no financial interest in the matter. The Home Secretary has made it perfectly clear that whatever happened in the case he was going to pay the damages, he was going to pay the costs. So at no point could the solicitor acting for the police officer, and having in mind only the police officer's interest, have

advised the police officer to settle on financial grounds. Quite clearly from what we have been told, the police officer was and could be under no financial liability at all, win or lose.
But the police officer had an interest; not a financial interest in the case, not an interest to avoid paying damages, not an interest to avoid paying costs. His interest was to clear his reputation as a police officer from the very grave charges brought against him.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Or to avoid having evidence given in public. I do not know.

Mr. Silverman: I do not know about that. The reason why the police officer could have been advised that it was in his interest to get rid of the case on any reasonable terms in order to avoid having the evidence given in public could only have been that the evidence told against him. The hon. Gentleman, if he will wait a moment, will, I think, see that I am following a line which does not differ very much from that which seems to have been in his mind.
I am saying that the solicitor advising the police officer in the police officer's interest could not have been influenced by any financial consideration. Public funds were going to take care of that in any event. Therefore, the only consideration which ought to have influenced the solicitor and the officer was the effect that the proceedings and the way the proceedings were handled would have upon his particular conduct as a police officer on that occasion.
It has been said in the course of the debate that the reputation of the whole police force was involved. With great respect, I think that is absolute nonsense. Of course, the reputation of the whole police force was not involved. What was involved was whether this police officer, on a particular occasion in a particular place, had acted properly or improperly, and that was very important to the police officer. If there was a reasonable chance from a full investigation of the evidence on both sides in public, in court, that the police officer might be cleared, it is very difficult to see why the police officer was advised to settle at all.
I should like that explained. I am sure that the initiative did not come from


the police officer. I am sure that the people who were actually going to provide the money must have kept in close contact with the solicitor throughout the case, from the moment when the writ was served to the moment when it was mentioned and settled in court. They must have considered the evidence. They must have considered the likely outcome, the probability, and how much it was likely to cost. They must have had some indirect control of the conduct of the proceedings. Or did they not? Did they leave it to the police officer and the solicitor to decide for themselves whether there should be any payment into court and how much it should be? Surely not.
I should like to know, if the Home Secretary or the Commissioner had any influence over the handling of the case at all, for what reason they advised, if they did, or failed to advise, if they did not advise, the police officer that his interest was to get his reputation cleared and the only way to do that was by not settling. If the police officer has a good answer to the charge he is the most injured person in this case—much more so than Mr. Garratt. Somebody said a few minutes ago that Mr. Garratt had this case hanging over his head all this time as well as the police officer, but Mr. Garratt has £300 to console him. Mr. Garratt has had damages. The police officer has had nothing. He has never had an opportunity of defending himself at all, unless the decision to settle was really voluntary—

Sir H. Linstead: I wish the hon. Member would address himself to the question whether it is not conceivably possible that the legal advisers of the constable may have said to him very simply, "You have no chance of succeeding; better settle."

Mr. Silverman: Of course. The hon. Member is perfectly right. It may very well have been the overriding consideration. It often is. People who feel that they have an overwhelming answer to a complaint are not normally in a hurry to pay damages for it. But if it is thought that that is the most probable explanation of why the matter was settled in this way, then the decision not to hold an inquiry becomes inexplicable, does it not?
On the one hand, the Home Secretary is saying on behalf of the Commissioner that an inquiry was not held because it was not clear that the evidence would support a finding of guilt. It seems to me a very peculiar reason for not holding an inquiry. It seems as though the right hon. Gentleman is saying, "We will not hold any inquiry into any allegation against any police officer unless we are satisfied in advance that we can prove the charge against the other party." That would be a very indiscreet way of deciding whether or not inquiries should be held. Let us suppose that the right hon. Gentleman came to the conclusion that he was not satisfied that Mr. Garratt could prove his case. It is equally clear that he was not satisfied that the police officer could prove his case, because, if he had been so satisfied, to expend £300 of public money in order to avoid proving it becomes an extremely odd venture.
So we have a situation in which serious charges are made and in which it is admitted that there is such a conflict of evidence that the decision might go either way. This would seem to be an admirable case for holding an inquiry in order to see which way it would go. If the police officer has an answer to the case he is being most unfairly treated. If he has no answer to it some action should be taken. If it is not known whether or not he has an answer to the case there should be a proper inquiry in order to find out. The public are generally dissatisfied because they feel that in a serious matter of this kind they do not know the truth, and that they never will know the truth. They feel that the whole matter has been so conducted as to make sure that they never will know. That is what the dissatisfaction is about, and the right hon. Gentleman has done nothing whatever to allay it.
We all welcome the right hon. Gentleman's offer to have a general inquiry into a number of important general questions. I am most grateful to him for it—if that is the right word to use. But if he has the inquiry it will not remove the public dissatisfaction with this case. I do not think that any of us seriously fears that this country will degenerate into a police State, but the question whether or not it will do so will be settled precisely by the way in which we handle individual incidents of this kind. The difference between a police State and a free State


lies precisely in the question whether the police are allowed to decide their own conduct for themselves; whether they are a class apart; whether they have privileges before the law that other people do not have, and whether they can bring proceedings or take action arbitrarily against individuals without ever being called in question for what they do.
We can protect a country from becoming a police State by having a system of administrative law, provided it is fairly applied and administered, but in this country we have never thought that the best way to proceed. We have always thought the best way was to have all questions of this kind determined by the ordinary courts, in the open, with the Press and the public present and with everybody free to hear and know what goes on and to form his own judgment about it. It is precisely in that respect that the handling of this case has so lamentably broken down.

8.44 p.m.

Sir Lionel Heald: I believe that everyone in the House and in the country will agree that this debate raises very important questions. I also believe that people will regard it as most unfortunate that the matter should be debated in a party atmosphere, upon a Motion of censure put down by the leading Members of the Opposition. That is a most unfortunate thing, which I hope will be remedied before the end of the debate by its being made clear that there will not be a party vote tonight.
If one thing is certain it is that the debate has demonstrated that the wording of the so-called Motion of censure is a complete farce. The statement,
That this House regrets the failure of the Secretary of State for the Home Department adequately to explain the payment of £300…
is now shown to be really nonsense. The payment of £300 and the circumstances of it have been completely explained. The background and the various circumstances attending it, the legal and constitutional difficulties, remain. Anyone who votes for this, if it is put to a vote—I sincerely hope it will not be—will be voting for a piece of nonsense, and I say that without any doubt at all.
Having dealt with that matter, let me deal for a moment with what is the real importance of this debate. The Motion

of censure, if there is to be one, is not on the Government or my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but upon everyone in this House, and upon Parliament, for not having a police system which is working as satisfactorily as it might be. We are responsible to the country for that, and for us to squabble among ourselves about whether a particular piece of administration has gone right or wrong will not appeal very much to the people of this country. They want to know that there exists a police system upon which they can rely.
We all know today what is wrong but what we can do to remedy it is another matter. The whole essence of having a police force in this country is that we should have a body of men who feel that they are doing, as part of their duty, something which it is the duty of every member of the public to do—that is, to preserve law and order. They can do that only if they have the co-operation of the public. They must know that they have that co-operation. I am sure that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) wants them to have it, but sometimes when he speaks one wonders whether he views the matter in that way.
It is essential that the police should be able to feel that they understand the public and that the public understands them. That is not so at the present day. Many people think that one reason is the difficulties arising over traffic and road offences. I have talked to many members of the police force, I have many good friends among the police, and I am sure that one of the most tiresome and trying things to have to do is to deal with the business of traffic offences.
Let us face it, many members of the public are not as co-operative with the police as they might be over these things. There are faults on both sides, and one of the matters which we shall have to consider one day before very long is whether in some way that part of the police work cannot be administered somewhat differently from the rest. Many proposals have been put forward. It would not be appropriate to discuss them tonight, but I believe that a great deal of the present distrust and unhappiness is due to that kind of thing.
That is all I propose to say, except that I should like to add that I think we


should all welcome the statement which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made today. We ought also to recognise the courage required to make it. There will be people who will say—I hope that no one in this House Will say it—that his decision to have an inquiry into the whole subject is a method of getting out of this Motion of censure. [HON. MEMBERS: "No one has said it."] That would not be a very worthy thing to say, and I do not think there are many hon. Members—I hope there are none, but I am not sure, there may be one or two—

Mr. Marcus Lipton: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is the only one who has said it.

Sir L. Heald: There may be some hon. Members who would like to say it. At any rate, I sincerely hope that will not be the view of the House.
Those hon. Members who have put their names to this Motion, those very important gentlemen who have signed their names, are not present at the moment and probably they will not be in the Chamber during the rest of the debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I hope that they will consider seriously whether the country will think more of them than it does already—which is saying something rather important—if they remove their names from this Motion or withdraw it.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: I want to trouble the House for only a very short time. I should have thought that all hon. Members, would have welcomed the Home Secretary's proposal to have an inquiry. I should have thought that that in itself justified this debate. But there are still one or two things we have to make sure of if we are to improve relations—and here I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald)—between the public and the police, which ought to be as good as possible. Where there are individual cases which cause public anxiety they should be investigated and seen to be investigated.
The crux of this case and the feature which worries the public is, first, that a police officer could have behaved in a way in which it is fairly apparent this

police officer behaved. The hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) used the word "assault", and from what we know of the case it seems clear that this officer did commit an assault. Some people wonder what would have happened if he had not picked for the subject of an assault a rather distinguished civil servant.
I quite see that the Secretary of State in an appellate position was not able to advise in the earlier stages as to what action should be taken. Nor do I intend to spend any time criticising the proceedings in court. It seems to me that in fact the police constable got very good legal advice. I think it is the genuine view of the public, and no doubt of police constables, that on the whole it is a wise thing to settle if one can rather than to fight legal cases. The second point is why there was no action, or what action was taken by the Commissioner of Police after the case had been settled. I thought it might be arguable that the Commissioner was unable even then to have an inquiry as there might have been other cases pending, but it has not been advanced as a reason for not taking action that Mr. Rix might have had a case pending.
We are told that the police constable in question has been demoted to making tea, but that cannot be a regular police punishment, that police should go out and make tea in the more remote police stations. What has not been explained to us is whether some disciplinary action has in fact been taken, and it has not been made clear to the House what it is. It may well be that an inquiry was unnecessary, but I believe the public are and were concerned to know what action was taken against a police officer who, so far as the public know, committed an assault on a man who was going to the aid of someone who was going to be arrested. I think it might be some slight satisfaction to the public to see that Parliament has taken this matter up. It might be some slight satisfaction to the public to see that the Secretary of State has come to the House of Commons and made a statement about it, but there are still many features of the case which to my mind remain completely obscure.
The other thing I want to say a word or two on is the matter of the inquiry


which the Secretary of State has promised. There are two separate questions. One which may be inquired into is the whole subject of the control of the police, relations between the Secretary of State and the Commissioner and local police authorities and police constables. The other is a slightly different question relating to the pay, recruitment and duties of the police. I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey that one of the things which is most exasperating to the police forces, which takes up so much of their time, is traffic control. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, that leads to bad relations with the public. There are various other law enforcement duties which the police have to carry out where the laws are extremely anomalous and absurd and where the public candidly do not think the law is in fact worthy of respect. In these traffic and other matters it is the fact that the public so often feel that the law is to be evaded, which is a factor in making for bad relations with the police.
We might possibly be told at the end of the debate whether the inquiry is going into this question of police duties and methods, because something which is causing grave disquiet among the public at large is the increase in crime. Many of us feel that the worst possible outcome of the increase in crime would be that we should go back to the old-fashioned and barbaric methods of retribution. But it is not sufficient for us to say that we shall do nothing about it. It is our duty to fight against this highly reactionary return to flogging and so forth, but we must make sure that we have adequate means of preventing crime and that both the public and the police co-operate to deal with what the public feel is a most serious increase in crimes of violence.

8.55 p.m.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: This Motion certainly raises extremely difficult and important questions but my constituents put the matter to me, as I expect other hon. Members have had the matter put to them, in a fairly simple way. They say, "Why should £300 of our money have been paid out without our knowing all the facts of the case?" It is in the light

of that question that I have entered this debate. That is only one example of a general difficulty.
Our constituents often say to us, "Why will the Home Secretary not intervene with the police administration in some way?" When I was Under-Secretary at the Home Office many hon. Members put exactly that question to me. It is astonishing how widely it is supposed that my right hon. Friend has power to intervene with the police. I regard that attitude not only with amazement but with a great deal of distaste. It would be a disaster if my right hon. Friend had power so to intervene. This Motion, in terms, asks that the law should be amended so as to give him that power.

Mr. Paget: No.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I will develop that point. If we are to intervene in this case, in which hon. Members think that it would be good to intervene, then we must also give my right hon. Friend power to intervene in other cases, which might be very difficult, such as cases of prosecution in which most hon. Members would agree that such a power would be wholly undesirable.
My right hon. Friend put the legal position clearly in the course of his speech. As this question turns on this matter, I should like to go into it in a little more detail. It originates in the Metropolitan Police Act, 1829. That Act gave certain justices of the peace responsibility for the police in London. I hope that the House will note that it was to justices of the peace, that is, a judicial authority, and not to the Minister, the executive authority, to whom the power was given. Section 5 is the relevant part of that Act and I will read the relevant parts.
The said justices may from time to time, subject to the approbation of one of His Majesty's principal secretaries of state,—
these words are to be noted in this context—
frame such orders and regulations as they shall deem expedient, relative to the general government of men to be appointed members of the police force under this Act …
After further words which merely amplify that part of the Section, it continues:
and the said justices may at any time suspend or dismiss from his employment any man


belonging to the said police force whom they shall think remiss or negligent in the discharge of his duty …
In that part of the Section there are no words making the provision subject to the approbation of the Secretary of State. In other words, what the Act did was to give the Secretary of State power to control the Regulations but no power to control the discipline of the police force. That was the position provided by that Act and it is the position today.
Subsequent Acts changed the justices' name to Commissioners of Police and reduced them to one Commissioner of Police, but he is still a justice of the peace, he is still sworn in and he is still not answerable to any Minister. For my part, I think that that position is quite right. I never want to see the detailed action, as opposed to the efficiency, of the police under political control.
If that be so, then whereas my right hon. Friend can give general instructions by means of the Regulations which he has power to make, he cannot intervene in any particular case, which means that he is unable, as a matter of law, to require the Commissioner to hold an inquiry in such a case as the present case. If the Motion were carried it would amount to a statement that my right hon. Friend ought to be in a position to require such an explanation from the Commissioner of Police. If it does not mean that, then, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) said, it is complete nonsense.

Mr. Paget: It means nothing of the sort. The right hon. Gentleman has to decide whether public funds can be used. In this case he can say to the Commissioner of Police, "A charge has been brought against the police by a member of the public. That must be resolved. You can resolve it or the courts can resolve it, but public funds must not be used to avoid its being resolved". That is what we are complaining about.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: That is not what the Motion says or anything approaching it. The Motion begins:
That this House regrets the failure of the Secretary of State for the Home Department adequately to explain the payment of £300 out of public money. …

To give any further explanation than that which he has given, it is generally admitted that he would need powers to obtain that explanation from the Commissioner of Police.

Mr. Gordon Walker: The Home Secretary said that the payment of the money had to be made on his own authority under the existing law.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The Motion does not complain of the payment of money. It complains of the lack of explanation. If the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) had meant to complain of the payment of money, it would have been easy for him to put down a Motion in those terms, and we should be debating quite a different Motion.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend has done precisely what it was his duty to do under the Act. On the other hand, it is true that our constituents have been putting these questions. This is an old Act, and the position is one which could well be reviewed. I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend say that he would set up an inquiry into this much more general question. The whole House will welcome that. I hope that they will reject the Motion ignominiously.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: The speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) confirms me in my belief that the difficulty felt by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House is to what extent we are discussing the shortcomings of individuals and to what extent we are discussing the shortcomings of the system. Speeches from both sides of the House have shown some difference as to that. That is why we all welcome the main announcement by my right hon. Friend that there will be a general inquiry into the system, subject to such suggestions as we may care to make tonight.
Some very curious accounts have been appearing of the incident involving Police Constable Eastmond and Mr. Garratt, well calculated to stir the maximum of public mistrust. It is an excellent thing that we have at least heard part of both sides and have had an "inquest" into the incident, of which we are the


principal tribunal. At least more facts have been elicited from both sides. That in itself has been very welcome.
Subject to two qualifications, there is an overwhelming case for a much more general review. To some extent, all parties in this case have suffered somewhat from a rather unsatisfactory system, or, if not unsatisfactory, a system which is hardly equal to modern pressures. The fairest thing to say is perhaps the hardest thing to say, and I express it as a personal view only. It is my belief that in the case of Police Constable Eastmond the Commissioner of Police has felt called upon to show strong loyalty to his force. I believe that that goes to the heart of this trouble. There will be differences of opinion about whether the Commissioner should have done that. We are not in a position to debate that, because we cannot debate the conduct of a public servant.
The terms of the Motion puts all this trouble on to the shoulders of the Home Secretary, but it is inevitable that we should be in these difficulties. We have taken elaborate steps to provide ourselves with awkward laws. We have done this deliberately to avoid political pressure on the police. That is the cardinal feature of our system. It follows that there must therefore be a limit to political control. One subject of criticism tonight was the absence of political control over the decision in this case. The Home Secretary made out a perfectly clear case on this, which I think will be accepted by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. As the law stands, how far my right hon. Friend can direct the Commissioner to do anything is most strictly guarded. Indeed, he cannot take such action. I hope that the lesson we have learned about the difficulty arising from this lack of control will not be lost when the inquiry is set on foot.
There is one thing which should be said about the background to what has happened and the background to the inquiry which I find very disturbing. Much has been said about the feeling of the public towards high-handed action by the police, which we all agree is isolated. Something should be said also about the feelings of the police, possibly reflected in some of the things which occurred in this case. They do

not see themselves as men with excessive powers pushing the public around, and very few of them show themselves guilty of that. On the contrary, some of them and some of the men commanding the police forces see themselves as men with inadequate weapons facing a task as difficult, and on occasions as dangerous, as has befallen the police almost at any time in this century in keeping the Queen's peace.
I do not wish to exaggerate the element of violence, but hon. Members know full well the difficulties confronting the police. Some policemen feel that there is perhaps an insufficient appreciation of them. We must face the fact that the tougher law breaking becomes the more likely that the police, too, will be tough, and the more likely that citizens who intervene, however innocently, may get hurt. That is designed to be a fair statement in relation to the police, but I believe it to be true.
There is some bitterness among the police, particularly those in the more responsible positions, at the failure of many to understand their difficulties, and of the inclination from time to time to seize on incidents that are regarded as a symbol of police misconduct. Last night the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) made reference very fairly to the easy way in which speakers had referred to police corruption in relation to betting and gaming.
I was guilty of that myself, and I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's corrective was very salutary. It is so easy to get into a frame of mind and speech in which one alludes to large-scale corruption of the police in relation to gaming and betting, as if we knew as a fact that it existed. There is the temptation, yes, but, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out, widespread corruption has not been proven, nor, in the circumstances, is the allegation justified.
The depth of feeling between police and public today is not, unfortunately, just a matter of public opinion. There is a certain amount of police feeling as well. We need not enter into how it comes about, but I find it alarming. This, therefore, is a highly appropriate moment for an inquiry. For this the


Home Secretary offered the widest possible field, so I would like to make two comments.
My right hon. Friend clearly implied, as I thought, that the inquiry should include matters of discipline. I suggest that it might, perhaps leave us with some more independent system whereby these difficult matters that are at present very uncertainly demarcated between the Home Secretary, the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, the watch committees and the joint standing committees might be more clearly defined.
Another factor that is most relevant to the relationship between the public and the police, and a factor that was the background to this incident, is police responsibility for traffic generally. If we are to have an inquiry—and my right hon. Friend invited suggestions—I suggest that the whole relationship of the police to traffic, motoring and motoring offences, should be included.
It is quite certain that in a country with 8 million licence holders the relations between public and police are affected by the number of those who have nothing to fear except when at the wheel of a motor car. I think that that goes very deeply into a good deal of the feeling now existing between many responsible people and members of the force, and I hope that an inquiry will consider that aspect.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) has raised the question of political control. I hope that we shall be very careful before giving the central Government power, or before any inquiry suggests that the central Government should be given the power, even though, from this case, it may seem to some of us that such a need exists and although many members of the public most strongly believe that that is what they want.
It should not go out from here to the public that we ourselves see an overwhelmingly strong case for more political control—and by that I mean, of course, more central political control. The diffusion of power of control of the police has been one of the greatest safeguards to the citizens themselves, and has been proved to be so over a very long period. It is one of our deepest traditions, and has survived a large number—

Mr. S. Silverman: The hon. Gentleman has said what I think we all feel, that it is a good thing that we are having this debate tonight. All that has been suggested is that we should have the same power even if this incident had not happened in London. That is what is lacking.

Mr. Deedes: I think we are really at one on this. As I have said, it is a question of what degree of blame should be ascribed to individuals and what degree to the system, and I hope that I have drawn a fairly clear line between the two.
As for the question of power, it does not preclude discipline and justice to the public to have a diffused police system. The present system whereby there is what one might term provincial control has never, under the terms of the Act, precluded proper safeguards in respect of discipline and the rights of the public. I believe that if we are going to set off on this inquiry we ought to speed it on its way with the conviction that, on the whole, the present system of diffused control is best and offers, in the long run, the greatest safeguards to the public and to the police.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Mcndelson: The right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) criticised the attitude of my hon. Friends on this side of the House in spending so much time on an individual case. I should like to begin my remarks by saying that there is no other way to safeguard the liberty of the subject from wrongful arrest than by dealing with individual cases as soon as they arise. I should have thought that that would not be controversial as between the two sides of the House.
My second point concerns the importance of the praise that has been given to the police force in the course of this debate. I join in that praise. But it is equally important that, whilst we must not allow false allegations about the police force as a whole to go out from this House, we should give due consideration to every case where their general reputation is being brought into disrepute.
The Home Secretary has announced the organisation and preparation of an inquiry. I welcome that announcement.


Before this debate I was very concerned with the position of provincial police forces. I have been disturbed in the past when a Member of this House has wished to raise a case concerning the delicate relations between a provincial police force and a supervisory authority, but has been told shortly before putting a Question that it was ultra vires and could not be raised.
It is very important that we should not centralise police power, but, at the same time, it is equally important that there should be some power at some point that could inquire into the conduct not only of ordinary members of the police force but of chief constables as well. That is one of the main reasons why I welcome the announcement that the Home Secretary has made tonight.
May I now turn to the Motion on the Order Paper. It is difficult for me to understand why there should have been criticism of the act of putting down this Motion when, in fact, if we look into the history of the House we find that that is the normal way of raising a matter of significance. It has been done down the ages, and it is right and proper. I do not think the Leader of the House will dissent from the view that the task of the Opposition is to put down a Motion of this kind where the liberty of the subject is involved. I think that today's debate will have done a lot of good.
I wish to make only two more points. First—and to me this is the crux of the matter—I have witnessed a growing reluctance among a number of people to volunteer to give evidence. I think that is a very serious matter. The crux of this case centres around the attitude of the constable which, if unchecked, is bound to lead to a general discouragement to members of the public to volunteer to give evidence in police courts. It is most important that we should encourage the ordinary citizen to volunteer to give evidence and not work in the other direction.
I think I may say, without contradiction, that one sometimes finds that ordinary members of the electorate will say, "I do not want to be involved in this. I do not want to have anything to do with the police". What they mean by that, to put it quite frankly, is that there is an apprehension in their minds that they might be got at in some way or

other in the future. I know it to be a fact that, in many people's minds, that fear is prevalent, although, in many cases, it is in no way based on actual experience. But it is there. It is the duty of the Home Secretary, of the Opposition and of every Member of the House to ensure that that sort of feeling is dispelled.
In my view, the Opposition have done their duty properly in this case. I believe that the idea of an inquiry has been in the Home Secretary's mind for some time. Speaking for myself, I have felt that there has been growing, in recent years, even without this case, the feeling that an inquiry was needed. I did not have this allegation in my mind before I got up to speak or before the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey mentioned it for the first time. In any case, although the idea might have been in the Home Secretary's mind, it is the duty of the House of Commons to make him hurry up, and, perhaps, announce an inquiry a little earlier than he otherwise might do.
Although not all the facts have been explained tonight, this case has, on the whole, been made much clearer by the debate. Expressing my own opinion, I know that I can go from this debate and say to my constituents that the Opposition have safeguarded the liberty of the subject from wrongful arrest and that there is to be an inquiry which will be in the interests of all citizens of this country.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. George Jeger: This debate has been very well worth while, because it has drawn from the Home Secretary a statement of great importance and a promise that there will be a general inquiry into the police forces all over the country and their relations with the public and the Executive. I hope that whoever is to reply will say whether it is envisaged that the inquiry shall cover the whole of the country, England, Wales and Scotland, or be confined to England and Wales alone. Further, will it cover a point raised by several hon. Members during the debate, namely, the relations between the provincial police forces and the Home Office?
As was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) in his opening speech.
had the incident which was the peg upon which this argument was hung happened, for instance, in my constituency in Yorkshire, I should not have been able to raise the matter in the House by Question or in any other way. Therefore, if an inquiry is to be held and there is to be deliberation on these issues, the position of the provincial police forces must come into it.
The Home Secretary has, I think, climbed down considerably during the last fortnight. He will recall that, when this matter was first raised by Question on 5th November, his answers were curt. He was not prepared to do anything, and even when I invited him to reconsider his view and gave him fairly strong hints that there was more behind the case than appeared on the surface, he dug in his heels and still refused to consider the matter further. He took a superficial view and brushed the matter aside. His reply was.
I cannot carry the matter any further."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th November, 1959; Vol. 612, c. 1198.]
During the following two days, public concern expressed in the Press kept the right hon. Gentleman in no doubt that what The Times called his stonewalling had to be abandoned. The Home Secretary must admit that, on this matter, he has had a very bad Press. I cannot recall another Home Secretary in my political lifetime who has been stigmatised and attacked by three leading articles in The Times in the space of a fortnight.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: A terrifying experience.

Mr. Jeger: I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman must have been surprised at the Press comments he received and also at the tone of the speeches and approaches made to him by hon. Members on his own side of the House. Consequently, on 12th November we had a change of heart. The Home Secretary told us that he welcomed the opportunity for a fuller statement, the same as he has told us today. I thought on that occasion that the right hon. Gentleman was going to emulate Mr. Doolittle and would say that he was willing to tell us, he was wanting to tell us, he was waiting to tell us all about the case of Garratt v. Eastmond. I

should like to think that the second thoughts that he had on this matter were prompted by a more careful consideration of the facts of the case, but I think that the truth is that his second thoughts were forced upon him by outside pressure and the pressure of the Opposition in trying to safeguard the liberty of the subject despite the offhand manner in which the Home Secretary treated this case.
The pressure of the Press and public opinion manifested itself in various ways to the right hon. Gentleman. If he had wanted to make a statement on the case, if he welcomed the opportunity to do so, who prevented him from doing so on 5th November? Sufficient Questions were put to the right hon. Gentleman to make him aware of the seriousness of the situation. He could either have made a statement in answer to the Questions, he could have said that he would investigate the case and make a statement later if a Question were put down, or he could have said that he would make a full statement at the end of Question Time, which is a normal thing for a Minister to do. The right hon. Gentleman did none of these things, and we on this side had to put down a Motion of censure as the only way in which to get the right hon. Gentleman to consider the case and to put forward the very welcome suggestion that there will be an inquiry into police procedure generally.
I should like to revert to the case of Garratt v. Eastmond. I should like to ask the Home Secretary whether he was ignorant of the facts of the case, whether he was misinformed, or did he really know all the facts and misjudge their significance in relation to public liberty? One thing that he does know is that he made a grave error in dismissing the matter so casually and blandly.
Take the case of Mr. Rix, the motorist who was originally stopped by Eastmond. The Home Secretary is aware that Mr. Rix and Mr. Garratt, who intervened on behalf of Mr. Rix and offered to give evidence, were accosted by Eastmond who wanted to know what they were talking about, interfered with a witness and then made a series of lying statements and false charges against Mr. Rix. On arrival at the police station at Putney, to which reference has been


made, Mr. Garratt's evidence was believed and Mr. Garratt and Mr. Rix received profuse apologies from the police in charge. Mr. Rix was subsequently informed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police that, after further consideration, no action would be taken in connection with the allegation that he was driving his vehicle at a speed exceeding that allowed by law. In other words, the evidence of Mr. Garratt and the statement of Mr. Rix prevailed over the false charges and statements of Police Constable Eastmond.
After long correspondence, which has been dealt with by hon. Members, it was agreed that £300 should be paid to Mr. Garratt out of court, but the complaint is that no disciplinary action was taken against the police constable. Yet it was generally known that this police constable is in the habit of making false charges against motorists. The Commissioner knew that the police constable had not told the truth. Officials at Putney Police Station knew that he had not told the truth, and that is why they did not proceed with the case against Mr. Rix.
Was this the first offence by this policeman? Is he a man with a known good record, an officer of great value to the police force? Perhaps we had better look at his record to find out. I have here a statement from a firm of solicitors in connection with another case. It concerns a Mr. Plesner who was driving a bright red Jaguar on 20th February, 1958. A police constable chased after him on a motorbike and Mr. Plesner pulled up. The police constable tried to drag the motorist out of his car and there was a struggle. The motorist attempted to call a neighbouring woman as a witness and the police constable refused to allow her to give evidence. The police constable tackled the motorist, brought him down and sat on his head in the gutter until the police car arrived. The motorist was subsequently charged with dangerous driving, careless driving, assault, obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty and failing to produce his driving licence. I do not know what else could have been thought of.
Mr. Plesner elected to go for trial. During the proceedings, the police

constable gave a lurid account of the various pedestrians who had evinced signs of horror at Mr. Plesner's drive down the road. No witnesses were called on behalf of the policeman. The chairman of the Kingston Court put the issue to the jury in completely unequivocal terms. He said:
There is no question of mistake. Either Mr. Plesner is lying or the policeman is.
The jury acquitted the motorist and the remaining charges which had been adjourned at the magistrates' court were never proceeded with.
That case lasted three days in March, 1958. It cost the innocent motorist nearly £200 to get himself acquitted. Mr. Plesner's counsel, incidentally, was Mr. Richard Body, who was then Member of Parliament for Billericay. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who was the constable?"] The Home Secretary should know, because a letter which I hold in my hand and which is signed by Mr. Richard Body, whom we knew as the Member of Parliament for Billericay, states that he took up the case
and the Home Secretary directed the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police to conduct an inquiry. I had a long report about it which largely backs up the police officer…. The report quotes as follows:—'The Commissioner feels that in some respeots P.C. Easrtmond's handling of this case was not entirely satisfactory, and the necessary action will be taken as regards this.'
I understand that in July, 1958, Police Constable Eastmond was officially reprimanded for his action in that case.
One or two hon. Members have said that the Home Secretary cannot initiate action regarding the discipline of police constables and the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead), with whom the Home Secretary agreed, made the point that the Home Secretary cannot intervene. I ask the Home Secretary whether the statement which I have read from Mr. Body, who is known to us all, is true and whether the Home Secretary initiated action by asking the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police to conduct an inquiry.
I have another case, the report of which I take from The Times of 6th January. This report is headed, "Director cleared of drink charge". It is a case which I will summarise rapidly, but


it follows the same pattern as the previous one. This was the case of a Mr. Kenny, of Kingston Hill, who was found not guilty of driving his motorcar while under the influence of drink and he was discharged. Mr. James Burge, defending, cross-examined the police constable, who said that he did not pull Mr. Kenny out of the police car when they arrived at the police station and it was not true that he had hustled Mr. Kenny on to the steps so that he fell on an injured knee. Mr. Burge then asked the police constable:
It would not be the first time an allegation had been made about you being rather rough, would it?
to which he answered—
No. That is quite right.
Further questioned by Mr. Burge, the witness agreed that he had hold of Kenny when they went into the police station, and that he did, in fact, go down on one knee.
Two doctors gave evidence, and after Dr. Stringer's evidence the jury said they did not wish to hear any more of the case. The charge against that motorist was dismissed. It was the same policeman, the House will be interested to know.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Does not the hon. Gentleman recollect that his leader, the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) and other hon. Members on his side of the House have spent most of their time this evening in saying that, in their view, possibly this constable was maltreated? Is this a vote of censure?

Mr. Jeger: If the noble Lord will allow me to develop my argument, he will see that I am not basing this attack upon the Home Secretary entirely upon the policeman. What I am doing is trying to show that the Home Secretary has glossed over the facts which have given rise to this debate, and that if it had not been for this specific case of this policeman there would have been no debate here tonight and the Home Secretary would not have promised an inquiry into the reorganisation of the police force. It has taken this case and this policeman to bring that statement from the Home Secretary.
During the course of his remarks, the Home Secretary said—may I have the right hon. Gentleman's attention?—that

while no disciplinary action had been taken against this particular policeman, he had been taken off road traffic duties in January. Was I correct in the note I made about that?

Mr. Butler: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to my speech, I have not got the exact words here, but certainly he was taken off in the early part of the year—approximately at that date.

Mr. Jeger: I am much obliged. May I draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to yesterday's Press—any of it? I happen to see the Daily Telegraph, and I read:
P.C. Eastmond loses case. Milkman cleared.
The report states that a charge of careless driving against a milkman was dismissed. The accident took place in Wimbledon on 23rd August, seven months after this policeman had been taken off traffic duties. The actual case is a trivial one. A learner driver was driving a motor-scooter when she was run into by a one-mile-an-hour milk float. The motor-scooter stopped suddenly and the milk float went on. That is the sort of thing that P.C. Eastmond is busying himself with at the moment.
On 5th November, to refer back to the date of the original Question, the Home Secretary said that he had a great variety of facts and that the Commissioner had been into them. I do not think that that was strictly accurate. I do not think there is any variety of facts about it. All the facts really fit into the same pattern, but, of course, there may be different interpretations of the facts. The records which have been presented to the right hon. Gentleman by the Commissioner, in the course of the inquiry which he is bound to have made, may show that this constable was energetic, keen, full of zeal, initiative and inventiveness. Actually, different interpretations of the same facts may show him to be a liar, and, even worse, a perjurer in court under oath, a man of hasty and ungovernable temper, violent to witnesses and those people against whom he makes false accusations.
There are certain aspects of this man's record which make one sorry for him. He is obviously maladjusted, and I should say has been for many years and is now in a most unsuitable job for


his temperament. I should say from the evidence that he is a man unfit to be in a uniform, unfit to be in authority over and in contact with the general public. I think it might be a good idea if he were to see a psychologist He appears to have a prejudice against red sports cars in particular.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick, who opened this debate, referred to an extract from the Sunday Dispatch of 8th November, and I think it is important because that is, I think, the first occasion on which Police Constable Elastmond has been invited to give his views and to state his own opinion. There he said that he would welcome a full investigation into his case by Parliament or by the police force.
After all the publicity this unfortunate man has received I think he is entitled to an inquiry. If the Home Secretary should direct an inquiry, as I have already quoted, into an earlier incident, I see no reason why he should not direct chat an inquiry be held into the career of Police Constable Eastmond with a view to allowing him to defend himself, to bring witnesses if necessary in his own defence, to be represented not merely by a solicitor but by a medical authority, and possibly to be fitted into some sort of position where his abilities would be made the best use of but where his disabilities would not be leading to the very sort of difficulties we have been discussing this evening. He is entitled to that inquiry, and I think he should have it.
This case itself is very disquieting so far as the public are concerned, but it has disclosed a situation over the whole of the country which has aroused concern. It is not a question of the misdemeanours of one particular police constable. Therefore, we are glad that the Home Secretary has taken a wider view of it and realised that this must fit into a pattern of a general reorganisation of the police force and its relations with the public. I am surprised that the Home Secretary has not done something about this earlier, for no one can deny that this deep concern about the disrepute into which the police force has fallen has been rising for a long time.
The relationships between the police and the public have been causing us a great deal of anxiety. I should like to

know what would have happened if Mr. Rix and Mr. Garratt had not been public-spirited and tenacious enough to pursue this case, and what would have happened if they were not fortunate enough to have witnesses. The ordinary victim of a police charge, whether it is justified or not, is glad to escape, and, apart from local publicity, he goes away feeling angry, disgruntled, disgusted but powerless because of the authority which has been vested in the police force.
We all agree with the tribute which has been paid from all parts of the House, that in the main our police force is a fine body of men and that the difficulties with which they have to cope, with a multitude of laws and awkward situations and, possibly, awkward people, make their job very difficult, particularly in modern traffic conditions, but that is all the more reason for ensuring that our police officers and particularly those on traffic duty who come in contact with the public are selected with great care and that the misfits—and there must be misfits—are weeded out or placed in other positions where they cannot come in contact with the public.
The Home Secretary has shown that in his opinion he is the best Home Secretary we have got. Looking at the Treasury Bench I am inclined to think there is some justification for his belief, but he has been a long time coming round to the point of view that this question needs investigation. We can only welcome the tardy way in which he has been forced to change his opinion by public pressure and the pressure of the Opposition.

9.43 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): I should like to begin by replying to the point which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger) raised at the outset of his speech, namely, as to the scope of this inquiry. I can give him this answer which, I hope, he will find satisfactory. It is, that the issues with which we in this country are concerned about the relationship of the police and the public, and the issues to which my right hon. Friend referred, are of common interest throughout all parts of Great Britain and my right hon. Friend will continue to act in the closest co-operation with the Secretary of State for Scotland over


those matters. So the inquiry will cover, as I understand it, all Great Britain.
This has been a very interesting and very unusual debate on a Motion of censure. I agree with those who say, and have said in the debate, that not only have we had a good debate but that it is a very good thing that we have had it. It would have been indeed very difficult if not impossible to deal properly with all the matters which have come into this discussion in the course of Question and Answer at Question Time.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) paid a tribute, and he is not the only hon. Member to have done so, to the high standing and the high repute of our policemen. He said, perfectly accurately, that very few of these incidents occur. When they do, they cause anxiety and general concern, and it is right that they should. None of us, despite the language that has been used by some hon. Members, really know what happened on 17th December. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Goole thought fit to condemn Police Constable Eastmond, without any trial, of lying statements and making false charges. I am sorry that the hon. Member used that language, because the evidence as to what occurred was disputed.
If I may give a short example, it was said by one of my hon. Friends that Police Constable Eastmond assaulted Mr. Garratt. Police Constable Eastmond's version, in fact, is very different, but there is no independent evidence and no independent witness of what led to Mr. Garratt being in the hedge. The versions are entirely contradictory. [An HON. MEMBER: "He jumped?"] I have sensed throughout the debate, and particularly from the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) a general concern on the one hand that Police Constable Eastmond should not be unfairly treated and a general concern on the other hand that proper steps should be taken with regard to a police constable who does wrong.
All I say at the moment, and I am sorry that the House did not accept it to start off, is that none of us knows where the truth lies in the matter. What are, of course, of general concern to all

of us are the bigger issues that arise out of this of the relations of the police and the public, the Commissioner and the Government, the chief constables of provincial forces and the Government. All sides of the House welcomed the statement which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made about the course of action he proposes to take.
In the time at my disposal I will endeavour to deal with the points raised in the debate, but before I do so I would say that it is abundantly clear that really there is no valid ground whatever for censuring the conduct of my right hon. Friend. Under our present system—it may be that it should be changed—it is quite clear, in my submission to the House, that he did all that his duty required of him, and if he had done any more he would have been exceeding his powers.
I want to come to the detailed questions put in the course of the debate and I will endeavour to deal with them in chronological order. After the events by the roadside on 17th December, as the House will remember, Mr. Garratt was taken to the police station, having been arrested by Police Constable Eastmond. The first question put by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton was why the charge was refused at the police station and whether the station officers had any right to refuse the charge.
I want to deal quite shortly with that point. The effect of what the station officers said was not to prevent Mr. Garratt subsequently being prosecuted. They were being asked by Police Constable Eastmond to take into custody, in the police station, someone whom he had arrested, and, under the Statute, they had to be satisfied that they were acting properly in doing so. If there was doubt they should properly refuse to do so, and in the circumstances that is what they did. There was no question of any charge against Mr. Rix. The hon. Member was wrong about that. As for the speeding offences, as he probably knows the police constable makes a report and his superior officers decide whether or not to launch a prosecution.
So much for that part of the history of the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) said that Mr. Garratt had been promised a


disciplinary inquiry. He is right in saying that in December, 1958, a letter was written on behalf of the Commissioner saying that there was a proposal to hold a disciplinary inquiry at New Scotland Yard, but that could not take place in relation to a matter which might subsequently be brought before a court of law, for the obvious reason that if the plaintiff wanted to bring an action in a court of law he would not be very ready to appear before a disciplinary inquiry. The answer to that was
We regret that your letter is silent on the question of compensation to our client, and we do not understand why a disciplinary inquiry should not be held.
Following upon that the writ was issued.
My right hon. Friend was asked to what stage the action went. The action was started by a writ and a statement of claim, and then there was a defence. The pleadings can be seen in the High Court. If the hon. Members want to see them I will see if I can have them placed in the Library, but I shall have to be sure that I am free to do so.

Mr. S. Silverman: What line did the defence take?

The Attorney-General: It was the usual type of defence—most things were denied.
Following upon that P.C. Eastmond's solicitor—a gentleman who is held in high repute in his profession—consulted counsel as to the course to be taken in the light of the statements made by Mr. Garratt and Mr. Rix and those obtained from independent witnesses. As the right hon. Gentleman said, that counsel is a man of great experience, and he advised the payment into court of £300–£350. The question has been asked whether any improper pressure of any kind was put upon Police Contable Eastmond to agree to that course. I can assure the House—because I have spoken to the solicitor since that question was raised—that no pressure whatsoever was put upon the police officer, by Scotland Yard or the Home Office, to induce him to take any particular course. Like any wise solicitor, Police Constable Eastmond's solicitor took authority in writing from him to settle the action on his behalf, and I can assure those who have expressed some doubt about it that nothing improper took place in that respect.
Just as Police Constable Eastmond might have refused to agree to the payment into court in settlement, so might Mr. Garratt, but the action was settled by both of them—one by paying in and the other by taking out. It has been said that the police lawyer had said that it was taken out without any admission of liability. I want to correct that. In fact the statement was made by counsel for the plaintiff.
The only question my right hon. Friend had to decide was whether to provide the public money to make that £300 available for payment into court in accordance with counsel's advice. There would have been grounds for censure if he had not made that money available. As it is, I submit to the House that it was the right course for him to take and that is the limit of his responsibility in the matter.
It was, of course, for the Commissioner to decide whether or not, in the light of all the circumstances after all this had happened, it would be right to institute disciplinary charges. He would have had to have regard to the evidence. It would not be right for him to take into account any earlier complaints or allegations against Police Constable Eastmond. He would have to consider the weight of the evidence, just as in considering whether to prosecute in a case one does not look to see how many previous convictions a man has; one wants to know what is the evidence.
In relation to what was said by the hon. Gentleman may I say that my right hon. Friend was not able, in the first case to which reference was made, to cause disciplinary charges to be preferred. He asked for an inquiry and a report and he got it. My right hon. Friend cannot direct the Commissioner to prefer disciplinary charges. Regarding the third case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, about the milk float, I wish to say, in fairness to Police Constable Eastmond, that that case was one in which he had taken a statement at the police station. That was Police Constable Eastmond's only connection with the case.
I have sought to give as much information as I can. This is an unhappy and an unfortunate incident, but if it leads to an improvement of our machinery and our organisation, and an assessment and ascertainment of the


correct relationship between the police and the Government, I think that ultimately it will end in good. I cannot help but believe that the expression of various points of view by hon. Members on both sides of the House about future possibilities is far more important than the details of this particular incident, however unfortunate it was.

9.57 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General that this has been a valuable debate and it is a very good thing that we have had it. But if we on this side of the House had not put down the Motion, we should not have had the debate. I said at the start that we should listen carefully to what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary before deciding on our action. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman fully clarified some of the aspects of this case in which we are very interested. I do not think that he removed altogether the feeling that it had been mishandled. On the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman explained much more fully than before the limitation of his powers regarding discipline in the Metropolitan Police. I can only say that it is a pity that this was not said at the beginning of the case with the same clarity.
The main thing which the right hon. Gentleman did was to promise an inquiry. That has been widely welcomed. We welcome it very much indeed. I take it that the right hon. Gentleman will consult with us about the scope and nature of the inquiry. The announcement of this inquiry would not have been made if we had not had this debate, and if we had not put down the Motion, and I think that the Motion we put down was, therefore, abundantly justified.
In the circumstances, and because this whole thing has become a larger issue following the suggestion and promise of an inquiry, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — TEACHER TRAINING COLLEGE, CROYDON

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chichester-Clark.]

9.59 p.m.

Mr. Frederic Harris: After sitting for two days during the Second Reading debate on the Betting and Gaming Bill without being called, it is refreshing to be able to speak in this Adjournment debate. The subject I want to raise—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must be able to hear what the hon. Member is saying.

Mr. Harris: The subject I want to raise concerns the establishment of a teachers' training college in Croydon. In October, 1958, I approached the then Minister of Education, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd), with regard to the establishment of a teachers' training college in Croydon. I indicated then to the Minister that this proposition was wholeheartedly supported by Croydon Borough Council, by our chief education officer and his staff and everyone in Croydon who is deeply interested in education.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House, lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chichester-Clark.]

Mr. Harris: My two Croydon colleagues supported me in my representations. The Minister at that time was settling the distribution of new training colleges and it certainly was an appropriate moment to make this particular request. I should mention that the detailed reasons why we in Croydon feel that Croydon was entitled to such a teachers' training college had already been submitted to the Ministry of Education by our town clerk only a few days earlier. The Minister replied that he was considering the proposal and that the application was well timed. I want to stress that the Minister in October last year said that our request was well timed. He added he was not then in a position to take a firm decision, although


he would bear the proposal very much in mind. He then indicated that he appreciated the spirit in which the Croydon authority had put forward its proposal.
All of us in Croydon who are closely concerned were naturally heartened by what we thought was a hopeful reply by the Minister. In February this year I received a letter from the Minister's assistant private secretary regretting that the proposal had been turned down because the Minister had been able to agree to the establishment of only four such new colleges and that in each case the position was the governing factor. The Minister's official view, apparently, was that while he recognised that Croydon possessed many of the facilities needed for such a training college, he naturally had to bear in mind the importance of not over-loading the London area. He obviously realised that his decision—to put it mildly—would cause disappointment to Croydon, and it certainly did cause disappointment.
In March, this year, I was advised of the likelihood of an extension of the building programme for these teachers' training colleges, beginning, I think, round about 1962 or 1963. I therefore immediately again communicated with the Minister of Education to ask if Croydon's request could now be reconsidered in this new expansion programme. In April I received a reply from the then Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Baronet the Member for Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle), indicating that if there was to be a further expansion programme the claims of Croydon would certainly be considered. I very much appreciated what the Minister then said.
In July an important editorial on this subject appeared in our local Croydon Advertiser, and at the same time I received another request from the town clerk asking me again to endeavour to establish Croydon's claim for a teachers' training college. So once again I communicated with the Minister stressing all the relevant factors. In August I received what I can only call a very disappointing reply from the Minister stating that he again noted our request but the prospect of his being able to endorse the proposal was not very bright.

He said that other claims would come before those of Croydon, which, I submit to the Parliamentary Secretary, was contrary to the original reaction to my approach to the Minister of October, 1958. The reply that we then received was in our opinion very disappointing. We in Croydon feel that our request for a teachers' training college should be publicly put to the Minister. I am sure that he will understand why we wish to do this. I am very glad indeed, therefore, to have had the opportunity of securing the Adjournment debate tonight.
May I again put to the Parliamentary Secretary the salient points? I ask his forgiveness in so doing, but he will understand that there have been so many Ministers of Education during the last few years that I find it difficult to know whether he is conversant with them.
We want in Croydon a teachers' training college of between 400 and 500 students with a bias towards science and mathematics, partly a day college but also with a considerable amount of residential accommodation. We feel that Croydon can offer exceptional opportunities for teaching practice for students in training, particularly on the science side. This year we have 364 students coming to our schools for teaching practice. Even so, our resources, particularly for science, are by no means fully utilised.
In thirty secondary schools maintained by the Croydon Education Committee, when the present projects are completed, there will be 75 laboratories, of which 71 will have been newly built or completely reconstructed since the war. The opportunity, therefore, for teaching practice in science seems to be exceptional.
We also have a large new technical college, now nearing completion, and this will provide opportunities for outstanding students to take more advanced courses in science and mathematics—my own son is there at the present moment—either concurrently with or subsequent to their teacher training. The completion of the College of Art within the Fairfield Technical College would give similar opportunity on the artistic side.
In previous replies, the former Minister indicated that colleges should


be established where there is a shortage of teachers. There may be some misunderstanding about this, but that is what we assumed the Minister had indicated. If this were the criterion, Croydon might not qualify as its shortage of teachers might be less than elsewhere in the country. But surely there are other considerations which might in practice be more important.
First, it is obviously desirable to locate the college where possibility of recruitment to the teaching profession is good. This is certainly so in Croydon, which is the centre of a well-to-do area on the southern fringe of the Metropolis, where interest in education is very high and the number of children prepared to stay on at least into the fifth form of a secondary school is one of the highest in the country. We are proud of that.
Secondly, the recruitment of teachers would be stimulated by situating a college in an area to which young people would wish to come because of the attraction of living and working in the outer suburban area of the Metropolis, with all the interest and the opportunity open to such young people. I put it to the Parliamentary Secretary that this is very relevant in considering recruitment. Finally, Croydon has exceptional transport facilities which make it a very accessible centre for a large and popular area, and the number of potential day pupils must therefore be very high.
I have one further interesting point to make, although it may not be strictly relevant to this discussion. In Croydon, we send to all the training colleges a very interesting leaflet. I do not know whether the Minister has seen it, but I have a copy with me. It is used with a view to the recruitment of staff. This leaflet indicates the attractions which Croydon has for young people and why we think it would be a help to teaching recruitment in general to have such a teachers' training college in Croydon. In bringing all these facts to the attention of the Minister of Education and the Parliamentary Secretary, I ask them to be kind enough to accede at an early date to our request for the establishment of a teachers' training college in the great town of Croydon.

10.12 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Kenneth Thompson): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Northwest (Mr. F. Harris) for the opportunity which the Adjournment debate gives me to deal both with the specific point which he has raised and with some of the general aspects of the teacher-training expansion programme with which we in the Ministry are at present concerned. This opportunity to make some general remarks is welcome and very much needed, and I hope that it will help him to understand the principles which have guided my right hon. Friend in the development of the programme.
The starting point is the five-year programme set out in the White Paper on Secondary Education for All. This set appreciably higher targets for the development of secondary education in our schools, and it was announced almost concurrently with the decision to introduce into our teacher-training system a three-year period of training in the place of the two-year period which has been applicable up to now. This reform was a very long-sought and much-desired reform by the teaching profession, and I am very pleased that it has been possible for us to bring it about.
These great changes—the development of secondary education in general and the lengthening of the teacher-training period—made it necessary for us in the Ministry to set about defining the principles upon which we should base the expansion of the teacher-training resources which would be at the heart of the programme. In this country at present there are between 150 and 200 teacher-training colleges. They have grown up over many years without any underlying pattern. To some extent it has been a haphazard, piecemeal growth. They have grown up in many parts of the country under many different auspices and they are of many different kinds and sizes.
I do not want the House to think that variety in this respect, as in others, is altogether bad. It is not. Indeed, many advantages have flowed into the teaching world as a result of the variety of the teaching training colleges. This was an opportunity, with the expansion of the system, to introduce into the teacher


training college world a measure of rationalisation which would, we hoped result in advantages on both educational and economic grounds.
To bring about any rationalisation in the system, it was necessary for us to work to some kind of basic principles, which would have regard to the proper size, composition and siting of colleges and to the courses and specialisations which guide those colleges in the curricula they are to offer. My right hon. Friend has the benefit and guidance of the National Advisory Council on the Training and Supply of Teachers. He has asked me to say how grateful he is to the Chairman and members of the Council for the important and valuable advice they have given him and continue to give him on the supply and training of teachers. Their advice is that where possible, existing colleges should be expanded in the programme, and that where new colleges are to be established they should be established where they will have a chance to bring about a close association with an existing university.
In these two great changes—the expansion of real secondary education for all and the growth in the teacher training college system—there has been nothing more encouraging to the Ministry than the great enthusiasm with which the proposals have been taken up all over the country. There has been a new and encouraging surge of cooperation and enthusiasm. It will be needed if these extensive programmes are to succeed. We must have with us local education authorities, teachers and parents.
I am happy to have this opportunity to place on record our sense of appreciation of the spirit which has prompted the offer which has come from Croydon and which we are considering tonight. I should like also to endorse what my hon. Friend said about the efforts which he himself has made to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to what Croydon has to offer. As a result of what he has said and written my Ministry cannot possibly be in any doubt about where Croydon stands.
We recognise Croydon's very considerable post-war educational achievements in the whole field of primary and secondary education. Croydon has achieved much of which it can be proud.

The technical college to which my hon. Friend drew attention, now I understand in its third and final stage, stands greatly to the credit of Croydon and I am sure will exercise a substantial influence over a very wide area as it grows and develops.
I turn now to the present position of the teacher-training programmes. We are concerned with two programmes—the first under which we decided to provide 12,000 new places in teacher training colleges by 1962, and the second under which we hope to provide 4,000 further places by 1963–64. The first programme is already committed and I am happy to say well under way. We hope very much that the colleges which are being expanded and those which are being built new and additional to existing colleges will fall into place in proper time as planned under the programme.
Under the first programme, we are building four new colleges. Of the existing ones, 66 will appreciably expand, and 13 of those that are to be expanded are colleges existing in the London University teacher-training area—a point to which I shall return in a moment.
The last stages of planning are now being reached in the second programme—the 4,000-place programme—and 3,000 places are already committed. There will be two more new colleges—both, I might say, in the South-East—and 16 existing colleges are to be expanded. I must say that there are many more possible new colleges, and colleges that could be expanded that have claims not worse than, and in some cases better than Croydon would have for some of the places remaining of that 4,000. I should also say that the disposition of the remaining 1,000 places is complicated, to some extent, by other considerations that we have to bear in mind in allocating the teacher-training places.
I am extremely sorry if my hon. Friend and his friends in the borough that he represents—and, with his colleagues, represents, if I may say so, most effectively—feel that they have been misled. At no time was it my right hon. Friend's intention, nor was it that of his predecessors, that Croydon should feel that it was being half-promised something when, in fact, the process of disposition of these places was still under consideration.
We did, in fact, have to keep open the door that Croydon's offer represented whilst the disposition of these programmes was being finally decided. Indeed, I hope that the door will remain open, even in the light of what I have just said. We must be ready to take advantage of every possibility if we are to carry through what is a difficult and complicated programme.
I want to assure my hon. Friend that Croydon's case, as deployed by the Town Clerk, by my hon. Friend and others, has been given the most careful consideration by those at the Ministry, both in official and representative positions, who have no objective in view other than to secure the most successful possible outcome of this whole operation. As my hon. Friend has said, Croydon has considerable advantages but, if I may say so, it suffers from the defects of its advantages. It draws on a wide, heavily-populated area, and it enjoys excellent communications, but it is probably those advantages that have drawn into this London and South-East area a very large concentration of the teacher-training resources of the whole country.
At the present moment, 40 per cent. London and the area south-east of it. That is a concentration that I, as a provincial—and I hate to see my ethnological slip showing—on practical grounds do not always find the most satisfactory possible use of our resources. There is bound to be a strain on the teacher-training facilities. The strain is already great, and when the colleges in this area that are to be expanded are added to the new colleges we intend to provide that strain is bound to be greater.
Croydon is removed from a university. It cannot share the cultural, social and sporting ties that close geographical association with a university would give. Additionally, since we are advised that the best way of carrying through the programme quickly and economically involves us, in the main, in expanding existing colleges, we have to take into account that a college at Croydon would have to start from scratch.
I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will not feel that the case for Croydon has been lightly dismissed. In parenthesis, I should add that there are some colleges that do not completely fit in

with the descriptive qualifications I have just given, but they are exceptions for which other very good reasons exist. I know and I readily acknowledge that in the education world Croydon has much to offer. I repeat that we are grateful to the local education authority for the zeal with which it took up the first chance of an opportunity to provide a college and the way in which it has continued to press its belief that Croydon is the best place to have one. I cannot say what the future may hold, but the Ministry is glad to know that these resources continue to be available.
This teacher-training programme is an ambitious one. We are not just training people in the tricks of the trade of teaching. There is more to the making of a teacher than just putting tools in his hand. Of course, we want those who come forth from our colleges to be skilled in their craft, but we want in the teaching profession men and women who have learned to see their job as a whole—the sending out from the schools of citizens who in their turn will do well what they know and understand. The teachers of these new generations must have every chance that we can provide to equip themselves to take up this weigh so heavily with us at this vital stage—neither accidents of geography or convenience, nor even the welcome spontaneous desire to help.
Our education targets are high. We must not be satisfied with sights any less high in the training of the teachers on whom so much depends. All this, I know, disappoints Croydon and disappoints my hon. Friend. I know his zeal for this cause. I cannot forecast the future, but I can say this. If in some further developments at present unseen there should arise a teacher training college in Croydon, it will bear my hon. Friend's imprint large upon it.

Mr. F. Harris: From all that the Parliamentary Secretary has said tonight, I presume that in the years ahead the door is still left open for Croydon's ambition?

Mr. Thompson: My hope is that it will be Croydon which will assure us that this door remains open.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Ten o'clock.